III. METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE POSITIVIST QUALITA-

TIVE CASE STUDY

We deploy a qualitative positivist case -study approach to test the propositions. Our adoption of positivism is consistent with the views that are held by scholars in the fields of organizational studies (Eisenhardt, 1989; Lee, 1991), and information systems (Lee, 1989; Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991; Sarkar & Lee, 2002, 2003), and follows a similar path.

“Hypothetico-deductive logic” is central to the world of positivist research today (Lee,

1999), which essentially is a synthesis of three traditions: empiricist, rationalist, and critical rationalist (Sarker & Lee, 2000, 2002). There is an empiricist influence in our positivist approach that is reflected in the rigor of our research process, drawing mainly on Yin (1994). The rationalist and the critical-rationalist traditions are reflected in the use of pattern matching to deductively test falsifiable statements derived from the literature (Sarker & Lee, 2000, 2002).

In our qualitative case study, we interviewed three inpiduals from each organization. We include inpiduals who have been working in their respective organization long enough; that is, since the pre- web 2.0-based knowledge management (KM) era, to observe and understand the effects of traditional KM, as well as web 2.0-based KM. We included inpiduals from top management as well as inpiduals who are not part of the top management in order to create a holistic picture of web 2.0-based KM effects.

As the last phase of this research is principally positivist in nature, using clearly define methodological guidelines we satisfy the four criteria of rigor (Shanks, 2002): construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Lee, 1989; Yin, 1994). In the following section we describe how we address the requirements of the positivist case-study method

3.1. Proposition Testing

3.1.1. Use of Web 2.0 for KM and Tacit Knowledge Sharing

We found support for the proposition that the use of web 2.0 technology for KM in an organization can positively affect tacit knowledge sharing between inpiduals working in

16 Nath/Journal of Accounting – Business & Management vol. 22 no. 2 (2015)

that organization. The interviewees were unanimous that the use of web 2.0 for inpidual-level KM increased tacit knowledge sharing between employees of the organization.

While interviewees thought that use of web 2.0 at the inpidual level increased knowledge sharing, they found it difficult to identify specific observations of tacit knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, the interviewees did mention instances of knowledge sharing, which essentially highlighted tacit knowledge sharing. We found that tacit knowledge sharing through web 2.0 based tools is particularly prevalent in troubleshooting.

Inpiduals learn knowledge from experiences of solving clients’ complaints and such knowledge can be categorized as tacit knowledge. We found that this type of tacit knowledge is shared through web 2.0 based KM tools and this knowledge helps other inpiduals to address and troubleshoot problems faced by their clients. For example, an interviewee from organization C describes how:

… our group needed a fast solution for that client. But, our group was struggling. We posted our problem description in the central wikiC to see if anyone in our organization had solved a similar problem before. In no time, someone actually suggested a solution based on his experience of working on a similar project and we solved our client’s problem.

An interviewee from organization B shared a similar incident of tacit knowledge sharing from contributor’s perspective,