# The Effect of Practicing Knowledge Sharing Behaviors on the Quality of Information (An Experimental Study Assessing the Opinions of Faculty Members at Sumer University)

Doaa H. Naeem, Joumana A. Younis, Nabila Abbas

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Doaa H. Naeem, Joumana A. Younis, Nabila Abbas. The Effect of Practicing Knowledge Sharing Behaviors on the Quality of Information (An Experimental Study Assessing the Opinions of Faculty Members at Sumer University). Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 2022, 10 (2), 10.22158/jbtp.v10n2p42. hal-04579432

HAL Id: hal-04579432

https://hal.science/hal-04579432v1

Submitted on 10 Jul 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Original Paper

# The Effect of Practicing Knowledge Sharing Behaviors on the Quality of Information (An Experimental Study Assessing the Opinions of Faculty Members at Sumer University)

Doaa H. Naeem<fnref n="1" />*, Joumana A. Younis<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> & Nabila Abbas<fnref n="1" />

Received: May 13, 2022

Accepted: May 26, 2022

Online Published: July 7, 2022

doi:10.22158/jbtp.v10n2p42

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/jbtp.v10n2p42

## Abstract

The research objective is to determine the impact of practicing knowledge-sharing behaviors on the quality of information. The descriptive-analytical approach and the questionnaire tool were utilized to collect quantitative data. The questionnaires were distributed to the faculty members at Sumer University. The research used simple random sampling of 150 professors at Sumer University and subjected them to statistical analysis. The questionnaires were distributed via e-mail and social media, the latter were checked and the invalid ones were excluded. Results were analyzed by the statistical program SPSS, V.25. The research reached a set of conclusions, the most significant of those results was: that knowledge sharing behaviors (knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, knowledge change) have achieved a total average (3.63) with a good degree of appreciation among the faculty members at Sumer University. The quality of information from the perspective of the sample was good since the total weighted arithmetic average was 3.48. Also, the research study confirmed the existence of a correlation and positive cause and effect relationship between knowledge sharing behaviors and quality of information quality. The results confirm that the knowledge change dimension is the most influential in the quality of information from the viewpoint of the faculty members at Sumer University.

## Keywords

knowledge sharing behaviors, quality of information, information

## 1. Introduction

The process of knowledge sharing has an imperative role to play in the development and growth of organizations and in achieving excellence. These concerns coincided with the shifts in the world towards the knowledge age. Many universities do not have knowledge of management systems or even an understanding of these systems. To give effect to the behavior of knowledge sharing among university professors, it is necessary to build a supportive internal environment, characterized by an organizational structure capable of dealing with knowledge, mechanisms for its transfer, sharing, means of application, and use. As well as keeping up with the times with the provision of advanced

<footnote n="1">¹ Faculty of Business Administration, Jinan University, Tripoli, Lebanon</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Associate Researcher, CORHIS, EA7400, Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3 University, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Associate Researcher, Dicen IDF, Abbé Grégoire, CNAM, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Doaa H. Naeem, E-mail: daalmhy1@gmail.com</footnote>
information technology. It is, therefore, necessary to improve the quality of the information required by all users of such information and the environmental variables that follow from that information at the University. The provision of the necessary information is one of the core functions of the management at the universities. This requires that such information is of high quality, relevant, accurate, and objective to achieve the targeted success of decision-makers in the face of many problems. The true value of the information is therefore linked to its ability to meet the required purpose in full accuracy and timeliness.

## 1.1 Research Problem

Educational institutions have experienced significant challenges, particularly in the era of digital transformation and e-education in the era of epidemics and virus corona in particular. It is therefore urgent to raise the value of knowledge and to adopt a knowledge resource instead of traditional resources. Iraqi universities are among these educational institutions, which face a range of challenges and difficulties. These, in turn, have become a threat not only by the likelihood that they will not achieve their goals and objectives but also to their very existence under these constant developments, innovations, and difficult circumstances. The quality of the services provided by universities of higher education also affects the performance of their graduates in the labor markets and affects the perception of the educational institution and its graduates by society and employers. Faculty members represent the basic building block for determining the quality of information and thus working to improve the output of education, building on the reputation of the university and the reputation and future performance of graduates. Therefore, given the changes and the high reliance on knowledge, it is important to focus on the sharing of knowledge among faculty members, through them the transfer, sharing, and conversion of activity-related knowledge to develop capacity, and refine skills, are achieved, because sharing knowledge with others means overcoming multiple obstacles, addressing constraints and determinants and increasing the value of the information quality required by faculty members, and delivered to students and society. Based on the above, this study attempts to determine the impact of knowledge sharing behaviors on the information quality of the University of Sumer which belongs to the Ministry of Higher Education by trying to answer the following fundamental question:

# What's the impact of knowledge-sharing behavior on the information quality at the University of Sumer?

Based on the main question, the following sub-questions will be asked:

1) What is the degree to which knowledge-sharing behaviors are practiced at the University of Sumer, the research sample?

2) What is the level of information quality at the University of Sumer in question?

3) What is the order of dimensions used to assess the information quality in terms of its Relevancy to the research sample?

4) What is the impact of knowledge sharing behaviors on the information quality at the University of Sumer, the research sample?

5) What is the role of the practice of knowledge sharing among faculty members in improving the information quality at the University of Sumer, the research sample?
## 1.2 Research Objectives

The present research aims to achieve the following objectives:

1) Highlighting and increasing the importance of knowledge sharing in universities.

2) To know the extent of the practice of knowledge sharing of faculty members at the universities of the research sample and their interest in the subject matter.

3) To know the reality and quality of the information at the University of Sumer in question.

4) Identification and diagnosis of the level of correlation and impact between knowledge sharing behaviors and the information quality at the University of Sumer from the point of view of the research sample.

5) The results obtained in this research can be valuable in improving the information quality needed by the university institution and encouraging the knowledge-sharing behavior of associate professors in the universities of the research sample.

6) Providing relevant recommendations to the research sample, that are applicable based on the results of the applied study.

## 1.3 Importance of Research

The importance of the research topic is highlighted by the following points:

1) The research highlights the concept of knowledge sharing as one of the most prominent modern management concepts to be highlighted for use in the contemporary management of Iraqi universities.

2) The research highlights the importance of the information quality in higher education institutions in terms of providing information to assist decision-makers in the universities in question to improve and enhance the quality of the educational service to enhance their knowledge sharing.

3) Knowledge sharing helps faculty members to carry out their mandated work more quickly, efficiently, and effectively. This in turn contributes to improving the information quality at the University.

4) The current research contributes educational institutions to the development of the required information through the knowledge exchange and their sharing among the faculty members to ensure the success of these institutions, help to support creativity, and facilitate the processes and generation of knowledge.

# 2. Theoretical Framework for Research

## 2.1 The Concept of Knowledge Sharing

Researchers have different views on the concept of knowledge sharing. Those who perceive it as behavior through which knowledge is disseminated to individuals and shared within the institution. In general, the sharing and expression of knowledge, information, ideas, and views is an essential component of knowledge management and key content and a pivotal process in its processes. Most researchers have identified two types of knowledge; the first is tacit (implicit) knowledge and the other is explicit (apparent) knowledge. The working environment tends to deal with the explicit knowledge codified in the documents and rules of the organization. On the contrary, the organization finds it difficult to deal with the hidden and non-visible tacit knowledge of the experiences, skills, and experiences of individuals stored in their minds, even though this type of knowledge represents a sustainable competitive advantage for institutions, particularly those based on knowledge, such as
universities (Abdul Hafid & Al-Mahdi, 2015). The researchers did not agree on a uniform definition of knowledge sharing, owing to differing philosophies and views on knowledge sharing as a modern concept in management, which resulted in several definitions, among which it was defined as "an activity whereby skills and experience are exchanged between individuals at the enterprises or enterprise level" (Brashdiya & Saqqari, 2014). While it is identified by (Tan et al., 2010) as representing knowledge sharing through social interaction, culture involves the conversion, transfer, and sharing of knowledge, experience, and skills of the individual through each department or organization as a whole (Moh & Ismail, 2009) defines it as the process by which individual people exchange tacit and explicit knowledge and generate new knowledge with each other (Burgheda & Dries, 2015, p. 845).

Menguc et al. see it as a behavior through which an individual voluntarily brings his or her knowledge and expertise to all sides of the organization from within and outside it (Menguc et al., 2011, p. 103). Yassin defines it as "the continuous and mutual interaction of tangible and intangible knowledge assets of individuals, task forces, knowledge groups within the organization, organization, and beneficiary, and market organizations" (Yassin, 2007, p. 68).

Based on the foregoing, it appears that knowledge sharing represents the process of the transfer, sharing, and exchange by individuals, groups, or organizations of their ideas, experiences, and knowledge, whether tacit or explicit, using the various means available to achieve organizational objectives efficiently and effectively.

Knowledge sharing is a set of processes, including knowledge conversion, knowledge exchange, and knowledge transfer. They are the most important dimensions of the practice of knowledge sharing that will be adopted in the current research:

1) **Knowledge exchange:** represents both individuals who exchange their knowledge with others and also includes individuals who seek knowledge from others, for instance, two parties interact and share tacit and explicit (apparent) knowledge (Antarah, 2018, p. 13).

2) **Conversion of knowledge:** Alteration and adaption of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and vice versa (Maryam, 2019, p. 3).

3) **Knowledge transfer:** The process of communicating the appropriate knowledge to the right person, within the appropriate time frame, in the form, and at the appropriate cost. This process is carried out through various communications processes that ensure the understanding and application of knowledge from the source and future of knowledge (Antarah, 2018, p. 13).

## 2.2 Nature of the Information Quality

### 2.2.1 The Reality of Information

The reality of information is defined from Portat's perspective as "data to be organized and shared" (Quéré, 2000, p. 342). Lucas defined it as "an expression of fact, observation or perception, or anything felt or not, that would reduce the uncertainty of a particular case or event as a defining description of the individual or group" (Siraj, 2005, p. 131).

### 2.2.2 Concept of Information Quality

The concept and nature of quality vary according to the views of information producers and users, so there is no specific concept of information quality. While the information product focuses on accuracy as a measure of quality, users of information focus on utility, effectiveness, and predictability as a measure of quality, taking into account the cost of quality and taking into account the degree of concentration by management level (Saadi & Zabbar, 2017). It should be noted that data quality is
initially evolving as a system, with specific research programs. The MIT Institute is the established area of quality discipline, drawing on Deming's work (1982). Also, those two terms data quality and information quality are repeatedly utilized synonymously, and results found appropriate for both concepts are often used. On the other hand. Data quality is “data usable by data consumers” (Alshikhi & Abdullah, 2018, p. 42). The term “information quality” refers to a measure of excellence in the delivery of knowledge or creativity in the production of information and the transfer of high-quality information is considered necessary (Diakopoulos & Essa, 2008).

Information quality appears to be the new form of attention to quality after interest in and extension of the good and service, whether it be information provided in traditional physical or digital modern methods, information quality is divided by (Juran & Godfrey, 1999) into two generations the first generation is that information is produced in large quantities so that its errors are detected and processed. This corresponds to the history of the evolution of quality concepts to the screening phase, where inspection and control officials detect the combination of substances and correct the deviation and mismatch to the specifications. The second generation of quality information is to reduce errors, prevent them before they occur, update them with a greater focus on customer satisfaction, and achieve this at a lower cost (Saadi & Zabar, 2017).

### 2.2.3 Information Quality Dimensions

In the current study, researchers will rely on the study (Oqba & Najmuddin, 2011) to determine the quality dimensions of information:

1) **Accuracy and clarity:** The availability of accuracy and clarity in the information to be obtained.

2) **Relevancy:** The extent to which the information is relevant to the purpose for which it was developed.

3) **Timeliness:** The availability of information to be obtained promptly.

4) **Completeness:** The availability of the information to be obtained.

The most important studies at the local, Arab and foreign levels that have dealt with research variables revealed the following. First is the study of (Al-Marzoogi et al., 2007) entitled Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing verified that some of the factors of organizational culture (Organizational structure, information systems, rewards, and leadership) are the cornerstone for the effective construction of the successful sharing of knowledge. The study had deduced critical results namely related to essential factors in determining the relationships between employees and providing opportunities in solving problems related to knowledge-sharing. The study of Hassan et al. (2016); Ballesteros-Rodríguez et al. (2020) Highlighted solutions that embrace trust between people, communication between employees, and information systems. Rewards and organizational structure.

According to AAA organizational culture plays a key role in feeding and sharing knowledge within institutions to be able to benefit from their knowledge and enjoy prosperity thereafter. The study by Ahmed et al. (2011); Suhana, Udin, Suharnomo, & Mas'ud (2019), and Saleh & Samsudin, (2021) identified the kind of relationship between organizational culture dimensions: Trust, communication between employees, leadership, reward and knowledge sharing. The researcher used a questionnaire as a data collection tool, selected seven service organizations in Bangladesh as a study sample, and used simple regression to process hypotheses. The results have shown that knowledge sharing plays a significant role for service organizations in Bangladesh by emphasizing trust, employee communication, and leadership.
The study by (Delone & McCleon, 2003), entitled "Model for Successful Information Systems: The study identified three main dimensions, including information quality, service quality, and system quality". The results of this study summarized that these dimensions affect the "use" and "the satisfaction of the beneficiaries". The study also confirmed that adding the quality of services reflects the importance of the service as well as its support in the success of the information system. The study by Oqba & Najmuddin, (2011); Al Rushud, (2021), and Chumg et al. (2019) determined the impact of the information quality on the knowledge management of the customer in the communications institutions of Algeria. The researchers used the questionnaire and distributed it to workers, and these studies reached many conclusions, the imperative of which was that management of customer knowledge based on high-quality information achieved highly competitive advantage and had a positive impact on organizations.

## 2.3 Research Hypotheses

To achieve the objectives of the research, the main and sub-hypotheses will be formulated to reflect the problem and variables of the research:

* **Main hypothesis 1:**

H1.0: "There is no statistically significant correlation between knowledge sharing behaviors in their dimensions and the information quality in its dimensions".

H1.a: "There is a statistically significant correlation between knowledge sharing behaviors in their dimensions and the information quality in its dimensions".

They give rise to the following sub-hypotheses:

- **Sub-hypothesis 1:**

H1.1₀: "There is no statistically significant correlation between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)".

H1.1ₐ: "There is a statistically significant correlation between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)".

- **Sub-hypothesis 2:**

H1.2₀: "There is no statistically significant correlation between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (accuracy, timeliness, relevancy, completeness)".

H1.2ₐ: "There is a statistically significant correlation between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (accuracy, timeliness, relevancy, completeness)".

- **Sub-hypothesis 3:**

H1.3₀: "There is no statistically significant correlation between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)".

H1.3ₐ: "There is a statistically significant correlation between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)".
• Main hypothesis 2:

H2.0: "There is no statistically significant relationship between practicing knowledge sharing behaviors by its dimensions in the information quality".

H2.a: "There is a statistically significant relationship between practicing knowledge sharing behaviors by its dimensions in the information quality".

They give rise to the following sub-hypotheses:

- **Sub-hypothesis 1:**

H2.10: "There is no statistically significant relationship between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".

H2.1a: "There is a statistically significant relationship between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality""

- **Sub-hypothesis 2:**

H2.20: "There is no statistically significant relationship between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".

H2.2a: "There is a statistically significant relationship between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".

- **Sub-hypothesis 3:**

H2.30: "There is no statistically significant relationship between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".

H2.3a: "There is a statistically significant relationship between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality"

The above hypotheses are illustrated in the figure of the proposed research framework.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Proposed Research Framework</figcaption></figure>

3. Research Methodology and Operational Framework

**3.1 Research Method**

The study on knowledge sharing behavior, carried out within the Sumer University, is constructed on a quantitative method using a distinct and complementary method of a quantitative questionnaire. Therefore, this study is founded on a hypothetico-deductive approach. The objective is to obtain quantifiable data relating to the perception of professors of the university. This data collection method is used to determine the need for knowledge sharing and its influence on the quality of information, to test a concept, and to validate the research model. Hence, to guarantee the validity and reliability of the
questionnaire, it is imperative to examine the quality of the questions, the sample selection to which the study will be addressed, and to analyze the results obtained, without forgetting the method of questionnaire distribution and collection. The implementation of such an operation required an effective pre-testing of the collection tool, coding plan, tabulation and data entry, and finalization of the database.

Current research adopts and expresses the descriptive approach quantitatively expresses the descriptive approach to presenting scientific pillars in data presentation, as a recent method, which analyzes data through knowledge coverage and theoretical presentation of various aspects of the subject matter. The analytical approach, which is a basic scientific methodology where analysis and interpretation rely on research results to arrive at results that build on the proposed model, has also been used.

## 3.2 Population and Sample

Based on the objectives of the research, the target research population has been identified as professors, members of the faculty at the University of Sumer, with a total size of population (250) professors from different scientific places divided by (6) faculties, and because researchers were unable to reach all members of the faculty at the university in question, a sample of simple randomness was selected by distributing the questionnaire to (160) professors and the number subject to statistical analysis (150) became a determination.

## 3.3 Operational Framework

By reviewing the literature on knowledge sharing and the literature on information quality, the research terms can be defined operationally as follows:

1. **Knowledge sharing behaviors:** The independent (interpretative) variable of research is represented by its dimensions (knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, knowledge conversion) and is defined as the practices through which an individual voluntarily provides all parties in the organization with his or her knowledge and expertise (Menguc et al., 2011, p. 103). Researchers operationally define the knowledge sharing behaviors of current research as the process of transferring, sharing, and exchanging by individuals or groups of their ideas, experiences, and knowledge relevant to university work, whether tacit or explicit, using various means available to achieve organizational objectives efficiently and effectively.

The dimensions of this research are: (Maryam, 2019)

a. **Knowledge transfer:** the process of delivering the right knowledge to the right person on time, within the appropriate format and cost.

b. **knowledge exchange:** the extent of social interaction between individuals that facilitates the sharing of tacit knowledge, and it is also a process through which the communication, transfer, or sharing of explicit knowledge between individuals, groups, and organizations is sought.

c. **Knowledge conversion:** converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and vice versa.

2. **Information Quality:** The dependent variable (responsive) of the research is represented in its dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness). The definition of “information quality” refers to a measure of excellence in the delivery of knowledge or creativity in the production of information (Diakopoulos & Essa, 2008). Researchers operationally define the information quality for current research as the extent to which information needs and consumer
expectations are met by required information providers or knowledge producers at the University of Sumer.

The dimensions of the current research are:

a. **Accuracy**: the required information is error-free (Saadi & Zabar, 2013).

b. **Timeliness**: Refers to the availability of information to its consumer in time to benefit from it (Saadi & Zabar, 2013).

c. **Relevancy**: Intended to be the Relevancy of the information for the purpose for which it was developed (Oqba & Najmuddin, 2011).

d. **Completeness**: The extent to which the information to be obtained covers all aspects of the subject (Saadi & Zabar, 2013). Table 1 represents the research variables and scale of measurement, while the figure below represents the proposed research model.

<table><caption>Table 1. Represents Research Variables and Scale of Measurement (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">NO.</th><th colspan="2">Variables</th><th rowspan="2">Scale Of Measurement</th><th rowspan="2">Number of Items</th><th rowspan="2">From - to</th></tr><tr><th>Main</th><th>Sub</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td rowspan="3">Knowledge Sharing Behaviors</td><td>Knowledge transfer</td><td>(Antarah, 2018)</td><td>4</td><td>4-1</td></tr><tr><td>knowledge exchange</td><td>(Maryam, 2019)</td><td>4</td><td>8-5</td></tr><tr><td>knowledge conversion</td><td></td><td>4</td><td>12-9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">2</td><td rowspan="4">Information Quality</td><td>Accuracy</td><td>(Daft, 1992)</td><td>4</td><td>16-13</td></tr><tr><td>Timeliness</td><td>(Najm, 2010)</td><td>4</td><td>20-17</td></tr><tr><td>Relevancy</td><td>(Saadi & Zabar, 2013)</td><td>4</td><td>24-21</td></tr><tr><td>Completeness</td><td>(Paramita et al., 2012) (Oqba & Najmuddin, 2011)</td><td>4</td><td>28-25</td></tr></tbody></table>

3.4 Evaluation of the Research Scale's Measurement

3.4.1 Test Research Tool

Researchers have confirmed the internal consistency coefficient of all questionnaire statements by measuring the degree of each (question) questionnaire statement with the total degree of dimension to which it belongs through the Pearson correlation analysis, as shown in table (2) showing the internal consistency coefficients of all questionnaire statements.
<table><caption>Table 2. Internal Consistency Coefficients for All Questionnaire Statements (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>Number of Statement</th><th>Correlations</th><th>Number of Statement</th><th>Correlations</th><th>Number of Statement</th><th>Correlations</th><th>Number of Statement</th><th>Correlations</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Knowledge Conversion Statements</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Knowledge Transfer Statements</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Timeliness Statements</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>.728</td><td>9</td><td>.769</td><td>17</td><td>.739</td><td>25</td><td>.758</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>.774</td><td>10</td><td>.802</td><td>18</td><td>.874</td><td>26</td><td>.823</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>.808</td><td>11</td><td>.762</td><td>19</td><td>.901</td><td>27</td><td>.711</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>.622</td><td>12</td><td>.748</td><td>20</td><td>.808</td><td>26</td><td>.827</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Exchange Statements</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Accuracy Dimension Statements</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Relevancy Statements</strong></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>.769</td><td>13</td><td>.780</td><td>21</td><td>.794</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>.674</td><td>14</td><td>.821</td><td>22</td><td>.823</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>.849</td><td>15</td><td>.828</td><td>23</td><td>.711</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>.795</td><td>16</td><td>.703</td><td>24</td><td>.827</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td>.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3.4.2 Research Instrument Reliability

Results in table number (3) showed that the total Reliability Coefficient of the sample (30) is (0.898). This indicates a high degree of reliability, which is excellent, being higher than acceptable (60%) in the humanities, while the reliability coefficient of the scale of dimensions of the independent variable of knowledge sharing behavior is (0.825). For Cronbach's Alpha between information quality dimensions, the reliability coefficient of the scale (0.882) is high.

<table><caption>Table 3. Cronbach Alpha Coefficient for Questionnaire Variables (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>Research Variables</th><th>Number of statements</th><th>Cronbach's Alpha</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Independent Variable statements: Knowledge Sharing Behaviors</td><td>12 words</td><td>0.825</td></tr><tr><td>Dependent Variable statements: information quality</td><td>16 words</td><td>0.882</td></tr><tr><td>Cronbach Alpha coefficient for all questionnaire statements</td><td></td><td>0.898</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.3 Normal Distribution Test

The purpose of this test is to determine the distribution of data, as shown in table (4). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test significance level value of all research variables shows that it was smaller than the significance level at (0.05). This suggests that variables that do not follow a normal distribution will be addressed by relying on the standard formula through which is known as standard values (Standardization).

<table><caption>Table 4. Normal Distribution Test Results (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variables</th><th rowspan="2">test</th><th rowspan="2">gender</th><th colspan="4">Kolmogorov-Smirnov</th></tr><tr><th>Statistic</th><th>degree of freedom</th><th>Sig.</th><th>Significance of test</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">knowledge sharing behaviors</td><td>Male</td><td>.123</td><td>116</td><td>.000</td><td>Significant</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>.190</td><td>34</td><td>.003</td><td>Significant</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Information Quality</td><td>Male</td><td>.090</td><td>116</td><td>.023</td><td>Significant</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>.126</td><td>34</td><td>.001</td><td>Significant</td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3.4.4 Test for Sampling Adequacy

To ascertain the adequacy of the sample, the measure (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, KMO) which must be worth greater than 0.50, so that the sample is sufficient, will be used to show in the table (5) that the value of KMO is greater than 0.50 and is good and indicates that the sample size is sufficient for statistical analyses.

<table><caption>Table 5. KMO and Bartlett's Test for Dimensions of Research Variables (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><td>Research Measures</td><td>Number of Paragraphs</td><td>KMO Test</td><td>Bartlett Test based on Chi-Squar value</td><td>Sig</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>knowledge conversion</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>knowledge exchange</td><td>4</td><td>0.659</td><td>118.101</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge transfer</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge Sharing</td><td>12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accuracy</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Timeliness</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Relevancy</td><td>4</td><td>0.741</td><td>210.596</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Completeness</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Information Quality</td><td>16</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4. Results and Discussion

### 4.1 Answering Research Questions

This part of the analysis addresses the identification of the orientation and trends of the research sample's responses to the research variables and dimensions by determining the attitude and level of the response to the views of the research sample by their responses based on the Likert scale in the light of the sample responses to the paragraphs of the questionnaire.

**Question one:** What is the degree to which knowledge sharing behaviors are practiced in these faculty members at the University of Sumer, the research sample? To describe more accurately the answers of the sample of research, each dimension will be addressed separately, and we will analytically discuss the statements that measured those dimensions as follows:

**Knowledge conversion:** According to the proposed research model, the knowledge conversion dimension was adopted as one of the dimensions of knowledge sharing. It is reflected in the responses of the individuals of the research sample as a whole which are built into Table 6 that all weighted arithmetic means, ranging in value from (4.41-3.47), and if compared to the degree of neutrality to which (3) degrees are assigned, we conclude that all statements have exceeded this value, indicating
that the knowledge conversion is one of the major essential dimensions of knowledge sharing at University of Sumer, from the point of view of the research sample participants of the faculty members of the University.

<table><caption>**Table 6. Weighted Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations for Knowledge Conversion Dimension (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)**</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Paragraphs</th><th>Arithmetic Mean</th><th>Standard Deviation</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relative Importance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>I make sure I take the initiative to pass on the knowledge I have to my fellow faculty.</td><td>4.24</td><td>.880</td><td>very good</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I help my new faculty colleagues gain experience in effective teaching methods and skills.</td><td>4.41</td><td>.836</td><td>very good</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The knowledge transfer of both its tacit and explicit types with my teaching colleagues has earned me distinction and self-fulfillment.</td><td>4.05</td><td>.975</td><td>very good</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>I could easily get to know my other colleagues.</td><td>3.47</td><td>1.047</td><td>good</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>4.04</td><td>.681</td><td>very good</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Knowledge exchange:** This dimension has been studied in four statements, with a total mean of. 3.25 of the upper limit scale (5 scores) and a general standard deviation (0.90) At an average Assessment, the highest value was at paragraph (2) on average arithmetic of (3.52), at a good level and a standard deviation of (1.041), with this paragraph at a level (1) In terms of relative importance, this refers to the involvement of research professors in sharing knowledge of community members through symposiums, lectures and courses as shown in Table 7.
<table><caption>Table 7. Weighted Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations for Knowledge Exchange Dimension (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Paragraphs</th><th>Arithmetic Mean</th><th>Standard Deviation</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relative Importance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The University provides all modern means of communication that allow for the sharing and exchange of knowledge with teachers.</td><td>2.90</td><td>1.257</td><td>medium</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I share with my colleagues the dissemination of knowledge among community members through symposiums, lectures, and courses.</td><td>3.52</td><td>1.041</td><td>good</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The University's internal management regulations and working rules allow easy communication and exchange of information with faculty members.</td><td>3.13</td><td>1.202</td><td>medium</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>The University periodically holds workshops and seminars that allow for the exchange of knowledge between its teachers.</td><td>3.45</td><td>1.179</td><td>good</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>3.25</td><td>.906</td><td>medium</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Knowledge transfer:** It can be seen in the responses of the members of the research sample as a whole in table number (8) that all weighted arithmetic means, ranging in value between (3.79-3.42), and If compared to the degree of neutrality to which 3 degrees were assigned, we conclude that all statements exceeded this value by indicating that the knowledge transfer is one of the major essential dimensions of knowledge sharing at University of Sumer and agreed upon by the view of the members of the research sample of the faculty members of the University.
<table><caption>Table 8. Weighted Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations of Research Sample Answers for the Knowledge Transfer Dimension (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Paragraphs</th><th>Arithmetic Mean</th><th>Standard Deviation</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relative Importance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>I try to learn the teachers' thoughts and other information during the knowledge discussions.</td><td>3.79</td><td>1.019</td><td>good</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I can transform available knowledge into personal knowledge through a digital knowledge repository.</td><td>3.58</td><td>.978</td><td>good</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>I share a common research database with my colleagues.</td><td>3.42</td><td>1.131</td><td>good</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>The knowledge I have can be transformed into books and publications that are accessible to all.</td><td>3.63</td><td>1.083</td><td>good</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>3.60</td><td>.810</td><td>good</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### Question 2: What is the level of information quality at the University of Sumer in question?

To answer this question, the statistical description of the dimensions of the dependent variable (information quality) will be used through weighted arithmetic means and standard deviations, and we will analytically discuss the statements that measured those dimensions as follows:

1. **Accuracy dimension:** This dimension has been addressed through four statements as shown in Table 9. The level of application of the total has been achieved by a total mean of 4.06 from the upper limit scale (5 degrees) and a general standard deviation of 0.70 and a good Assessment.

<table><caption>Table 9. Weighted Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations for Accuracy Dimension (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Paragraphs</th><th>Mean</th><th>Standard Deviation</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relative Importance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The information I give to my colleagues or others is correct and error-free.</td><td>4.25</td><td>.845</td><td>very good</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The information I give my colleagues or beneficiaries is free of bias.</td><td>4.19</td><td>.981</td><td>good</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>3</td><td>The information I provide to the beneficiaries is the result of data on which microprocessors have been performed.</td><td>3.97</td><td>.855</td><td>good</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>The information I get at the university is from reliable sources.</td><td>3.86</td><td>.920</td><td>good</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>4.06</td><td>.704</td><td>good</td><td></td></tr></table>

**2. Timeliness dimension:** The results on the timeliness dimension indicated that it achieved an overall mean (3.04) and an estimated standard deviation (0.885) and a good assessment as shown in Table 10.

<table><caption>Table 10. Weighted Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations for Timeliness Dimension (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Paragraphs</th><th>Mean</th><th>Standard Deviation</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relative Importance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>I Get the required information as fast as I need it.</td><td>3.45</td><td>1.066</td><td>good</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I always get the information I need from college in time.</td><td>2.89</td><td>1.072</td><td>medium</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The information I need is easily accessible from various sources at the university.</td><td>2.92</td><td>1.065</td><td>medium</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>The work environment at the university helps me get information directly without much effort.</td><td>2.93</td><td>1.062</td><td>medium</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>3.04</td><td>.885</td><td>medium</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**3. Relevancy dimension:** The results of the relevancy dimension as shown in table 11 show that it has achieved a total mean of (3.52), an estimated standard deviation (0.740), and a good Assessment.
<table><caption>Table 11. Weighted Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations for Relevancy Dimension (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Paragraphs</th><th>Mean</th><th>Standard Deviation</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relative Importance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The information I get is very relevant to my work at the university.</td><td>3.53</td><td>.953</td><td>good</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I constantly get information that fits what I'm trying to achieve in college.</td><td>3.30</td><td>1.067</td><td>medium</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>I feel that the information I get on to my college colleagues or beneficiaries is always appropriate for them.</td><td>3.73</td><td>.810</td><td>good</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>The information I get is commensurate with the size and variety of work I give others.</td><td>3.54</td><td>.910</td><td>good</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>3.52</td><td>.74057</td><td>good</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**4. Completeness dimension:** The results, as shown in Table 11, showed that the dimension of completeness achieved a total mean (3.29), an estimated standard deviation (0.707), and a good Assessment.

<table><caption>Table 12. Weighted Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Paragraphs</th><th>Mean</th><th>Standard Deviation</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relative Importance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The information I get is comprehensive and adequate for my work.</td><td>3.41</td><td>.804</td><td>good</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I feel like the information I get covers all areas of my work at the university.</td><td>3.24</td><td>.967</td><td>medium</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The university provides me with all the information I need on the job.</td><td>2.81</td><td>1.060</td><td>medium</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>I think the information I give others meets all the needs of its beneficiaries.</td><td>3.70</td><td>.833</td><td>good</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>3.29</td><td>.70715</td><td>medium</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
To shed more light on the two variables (knowledge sharing) as an independent variable and (information quality) as a dependent variable. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation were relied on. As shown in table (13) the T value test was also used for one sample and the level of significance (0.05) was then compared with the probability value generated by the Sig column and must be less than (0.05). We note that the weighted arithmetic average of the knowledge sharing variable was 0.05. (3.63) while the average arithmetic of the variable of information quality (3.48), and when compared to the degree of neutrality assigned to it (3) degrees, we conclude that all statements exceeded this value, indicating that the statements of the research variables are acceptable and necessary from the point of view of the research sample participants, and the T-test value of the knowledge sharing variable was (11.789). The T-test value of the information quality variable (is 9.958). The probability value of the variables (Sig) was equal to (0.000), which suggests that the average response of the research sample participants about domain statements is fundamentally different from the degree of neutrality, indicating that the research sample participants agree with the statements of the research variables.

<table><caption>Table 13. Weighted Arithmetic Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Sample Testament Research Variables (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><caption>One-Sample Test<br>Test Value=3</caption><thead><tr><th>NO.</th><th>Search Variables</th><th>Mean</th><th>standard<br>deviation</th><th>T</th><th>Sig. (2-tailed)</th><th>N</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Knowledge Sharing<br>Behaviors</td><td>3.63</td><td>0.65</td><td>11.789</td><td>0.000</td><td>150</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Information Quality</td><td>3.48</td><td>0.59</td><td>9.958</td><td>0.000</td><td>150</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.2 Testing and Discussion of Research Hypotheses

In this part of the study, the third question of the study will be answered and the main and sub-hypotheses of the study, formed based on the problem and objectives of the research, will be tested, and to test the research hypotheses, the Spearman Correlation will be used to see the attitude and strength of the relationship between research variables and significant levels as well as multiple regression analysis in Stepwise method and the use of the Enter method to answer the third question for research and the third main hypothesis. This will be clarified as follows:

### 4.2.1 Testing the Hypotheses' Correlation between Variables

**Main hypothesis 1:** "There is a statistically significant correlation between knowledge sharing behaviors and their dimensions and the quality and dimensions of information". To test this hypothesis, it was divided into three sub-hypotheses, and Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to establish the relationship between dimensions of knowledge sharing behaviors as independent variables and dimensions of information quality as dependent variables, as follows:

1) **First sub-hypothesis test:** The results shown in table (14) showed that the dimension of (knowledge conversion) of the independent variable has achieved a positive correlation
coefficient in the dependent variable (information quality) with a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.433 at a significance level of (0.00=α). This indicates a significant linear relationship between the two variables and an average level. This result provides sufficient support for the acceptance of the hypothesis.

2) **Second sub-hypothesis test:** It is clear from the results built-in Table (14) that the correlation coefficient between the dimension (exchange of knowledge) of one of the dimensions of the independent variable reached a positive and direct correlation coefficient in the dependent variable (information quality). The value of the correlation coefficient (0.527) was statistically significant at the level of significance (0.00).=α. This indicates that there is a significant linear relationship between the two variables at an average level, and this result provides sufficient support for accepting the hypothesis.

3) **Third sub-hypothesis test.** Through the results shown in Table (14), it appears that the correlation coefficient between the dimension (transfer of knowledge) of one of the dimensions of the independent variable reached a positive and direct correlation coefficient in the dependent variable (information quality), as the value of the correlation coefficient reached (0.527) with statistical significance at the level of significance (α=0.00), and this indicates that there is a significant linear relationship between the two variables at an average level, and this result provides sufficient support to accept the hypothesis.

<table><caption>Table 14. Results of the Spearman's Correlation Coefficient for the Relationship between Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing Behaviors and the Information Quality (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>Dependent Variable</th><th>Independent variable dimensions<br>Knowledge Sharing Behaviors</th><th>Correlation Value and Significance Level</th><th>Assessment Level</th><th>Relationship Strength</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">information quality</td><td>knowledge conversion</td><td>Correlation Value 0.433**<br>Sig 0.000</td><td>Positive</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td>knowledge exchange</td><td>Correlation Value 0.527**<br>Sig 0.000</td><td>Positive</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>knowledge transfer</td><td>Correlation Value 0.495**<br>Sig 0.000</td><td>Positive</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Number of accepted hypotheses 3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Percentage %100</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**</td></tr></tbody></table>
Based on previous tests of the three sub-hypotheses, through which the positive relationship between the dimensions of the independent variable (behaviors of knowledge sharing) and the dependent variable (information quality) has been established. It is necessary to test the main hypothesis and to know the correlation relationship between the independent variable (knowledge sharing behaviors) and the dependent variable (information quality). This is shown by the results shown in Table 15. The results show that there is a correlation between knowledge-sharing behaviors. (x) and the quality of the information (y), at 0.590, this value indicates a positive, significant, and moderate direct correlation between the two variables, and this result provides sufficient support for acceptance of the first main hypothesis and accordingly validates the first main hypothesis, which states: "There is a statistically significant correlation at a significance level of (0.05) between knowledge sharing behaviors and their dimensions and the quality and dimensions of information from the point of view of the research sample"

<table><caption>Table 15. Results of the Spearman's Correlation Coefficient for the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing Behaviors (x) and Information Quality (y) (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Independent variable of knowledge sharing behaviors (x)</th><th colspan="4">Information quality dimensions</th><th rowspan="2">The dependent variable of information quality (y)</th></tr><tr><th>Accuracy</th><th>Timeliness</th><th>Relevancy</th><th>Completeness</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Correlation coefficient</td><td>0.268**</td><td>0.573**</td><td>0.503**</td><td>0.474**</td><td>0.590**</td></tr><tr><td>Significance level</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="6">Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**</td></tr></tfoot></table>

### Main Hypothesis 2:

This hypothesis states: "There is a statistically significant relationship between the dimensions of practicing knowledge sharing behaviors in the quality of information". To test this hypothesis, multiple progressive regression analysis was used in the method (Stepwise) to demonstrate the impact of the dimensions of knowledge sharing behaviors as independent variables in information quality as a dependent variable, the results of the sequence regression analysis showed that the appropriate final model equation is the dependent variable formula:

$$Y = 1.355 + 0.209X1 + 0.196X2 + 0.179X3$$

The above equation shows that the ratio of the effect of variable X1 to parameter B1 for the knowledge conversion dimension is (0). 209 affects Y (information quality), which means that when X1 changes (Dimension of knowledge conversion) in one unit, the quality of information Y is affected by a change in the ratio (0.209) with the value of X2, X3 remaining constant, as does the parameter (B2) is affected by X2 at (0.196), which means the amount of change in (Dependent variable/information quality) Y
will be (0.196) unit when a change in dimension of (knowledge exchange) X2 by a single amount assuming the reliability of the value of X1, X3. So is the parameter (B3).

The results of the variance analysis and the F count test were shown in table (16), which shows the significance of the estimated model because the value of the F test for the model has reached (34.326) with a significance level (Sig.=0.00) and since it is lower than significance (0.05=α) the alternative hypothesis will be accepted and the alternative hypothesis will be rejected, which means that there is a relationship between independent variables. (Knowledge conversion, knowledge exchange, knowledge transfer) together influence the dependent variable the quality of information and thus, the model that is estimated as good and predictable is significant.

To show which variables had a significant effect on the dependent variable Y, the T-test of the estimated model parameters was done and the significant effect of each variable (X1, X2, X3) was clear. because the value of their T-count is at the significance level. (0.005=α, 0.000=α, 0.003=α), respectively, which fall short of hypothetical significance (0.05=α). The alternative hypothesis for each parameter of rejection of the alternative hypotheses will be accepted and the effect of the estimated parameters will be judged thus the independent variables involved in the model (Knowledge conversion X1, knowledge exchange X2, knowledge transfer X3) is statistically significant in the model. As for the adjusted coefficient of determination, R2, it reached a value of (0.414). This value indicates that the dimensions of the independent variable (knowledge conversion X1, knowledge exchange X2, knowledge transfer X3) account for 41.4% of changes in the dependent variable (information quality) Y, which is a good percentage, and the remaining 58.6% for other factors not included in the model.

<table><caption>Table 16. Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis by (Stepwise) Method (Researchers, SPSS, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>The model in the final form using the Stepwise method</th><th>B</th><th>T</th><th>Sig.</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th><th>R Square</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(Constant)</td><td>1.355</td><td>5.830</td><td>.000</td><td>34.326</td><td>.000</td><td>.414</td></tr><tr><td>knowledge transfer X3</td><td>.179</td><td>2.831</td><td>.005</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>knowledge exchange X2</td><td>.196</td><td>3.974</td><td>.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>knowledge conversion X1</td><td>.209</td><td>2.983</td><td>.003</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

As a conclusion to the research and to clarify the results in the form of hypotheses. The below table summarizes the status (rejection, acceptance) of each given hypothesis.
<table><caption>Table 17. Recapitulation of the Research Hypotheses</caption><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Main hypothesis 1</td><td>H1<sub>0</sub>: “There is no statistically significant correlation between knowledge sharing behaviors in their dimensions and the information quality in its dimensions”</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td>H1<sub>a</sub>: “There is a statistically significant correlation between knowledge sharing behaviors in their dimensions and the information quality in its dimensions”</td><td>Accepted</td></tr><tr><td>H1.1<sub>0</sub>: “There is no statistically significant correlation between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)”.</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sub-hypothesis 1</td><td>H1.1<sub>a</sub>: “There is a statistically significant correlation between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)”.</td><td>Accepted</td></tr><tr><td>H1.2<sub>0</sub>: “There is no statistically significant correlation between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (accuracy, timeliness, relevancy, completeness)”.</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sub-hypothesis 2</td><td>H1.2<sub>a</sub>: “There is a statistically significant correlation between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (accuracy, timeliness, relevancy, completeness)”.</td><td>Accepted</td></tr><tr><td>H1.3<sub>0</sub>: “There is no statistically significant correlation between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)”.</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sub-hypothesis 3</td><td>H1.3<sub>a</sub>: “There is a statistically significant correlation between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality in its four dimensions (Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy, Completeness)”.</td><td>Accepted</td></tr><tr><td>H2<sub>0</sub>: “There is no statistically significant relationship between practicing knowledge sharing behaviors by its dimensions in the</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>information quality".</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td>**Main hypothesis 2**</td><td><b>H2<sub>a</sub>:</b> "There is a statistically significant relationship between practicing knowledge sharing behaviors by its dimensions in the information quality".</td><td>Accepted</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><b>H2.1<sub>0</sub>:</b> "There is no statistically significant relationship between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td>**Sub-hypothesis 1**</td><td><b>H2.1<sub>a</sub>:</b> "There is a statistically significant relationship between the knowledge conversion as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".</td><td>Accepted</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><b>H2.2<sub>0</sub>:</b> "There is no statistically significant relationship between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td>**Sub-hypothesis 2**</td><td><b>H2.2<sub>a</sub>:</b> "There is a statistically significant relationship between knowledge exchange as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".</td><td>Accepted</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><b>H2.3<sub>0</sub>:</b> "There is no statistically significant relationship between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".</td><td>Rejected</td></tr><tr><td>**Sub-hypothesis 3**</td><td><b>H2.3<sub>a</sub>:</b> "There is a statistically significant relationship between the knowledge transfer as one of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and the information quality".</td><td>Accepted</td></tr></table>

## 4.3 Results Interpretations

The current research differs from previous studies in linking the practice of knowledge-sharing behaviors and the quality of information. These two variables are important. Perhaps the main addition to this research is the link between the exclusion of both variables and knowing what the correlation is and what the impact relationship is between them from professors' perspectives and faculty members at the University of Sumer. knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, and conversion are the most critical behaviors constituting dimensions of knowledge sharing. On the one hand, these behaviors consort with those verified by Savarese et al. (2015); Zhang et al. (2019), and Tran (2020). the knowledge creation process is accomplished through conversation between people, the exchange of information and experiences, in an environment in which the relationship between them is stimulated, fostering collaboration and trust. On the other hand, these same results contradict the results obtained by Xu &
Li (2022); Kularajasingam et al. (2022), and Maiyo (2021). These studies show that knowledge, strengthens with each generation, transferring importance to what is intangible, to the detriment of what is tangible and concrete. Knowledge sharing emerges as a chain of events based on identifying the key knowledge needed, the people who need that knowledge, and the resources that can support them, all based on the social interaction of those involved.

Knowledge is essential for all organizations. Knowledge concerns both the organization and its employees, who must be able to share it. Knowledge sharing possesses a central share in knowledge management. The performance of individuals improves, and so performs the organization, whose objective is to provide the best goods and services to its customers. The latter requires a high degree of knowledge to be shared among employees. For most knowledge-related processes, trust is important for transparent knowledge creation, sharing, and use. Knowledge sharing is the common denominator of the quality of information. Effective knowledge transfer and exchange efforts see knowledge as a means to improve practices and situations with a positive impact, rather than as an end in itself. While the objective of knowledge transfer and exchange is to decrease the gap between knowledge and practice, the subsequent changes are favorable. These variations include but are not limited to increased user capacity to apply knowledge, integration of knowledge into the decision-making process, encouragement of a cultural change within an organization, and greater collaboration between the workforce.

To obtain effective quality information, managers should establish a culture of knowledge management in which knowledge transfer, exchange, and conversion are valued. Technology should not be considered the ultimate response to knowledge sharing; it must be accomplished wisely so that controlled information is directed aptly. Hence, conducting consecutively innovation workshops or brainstorming sessions where employees are reinvigorated to deliberately think about new solutions is essential to advance and enhance the quality of information. Besides, the creation of a knowledge bank of beneficial information and guidelines on how to perform crucial tasks encourage employees to post news or suggestions to leverage quality information. Finally, training is a critical factor in spreading key knowledge, skills, and best practices.

# 5. Conclusion and Recommendations

## 5.1 Research Conclusion

The results of the research demonstrated that there is homogeneity and agreement for most of the research sample on statements of the variables of the behaviors of knowledge sharing and that all of the statements of dimension were filled. The results showed that the proportion of knowledge sharing behaviors of professors from the faculty members of the University of Sumer in question achieved a total mean of (3.63) and an estimated standard deviation (0.65) and a good assessment of a measure of higher (5) degrees, this matches with the study of (Zawiyah & et al., 2009) who concluded that there was a good sharing of knowledge among workers in the institutions of the government sector in question, while on the other hand, it differed with the study of (Al-Hadrami, 2017), which emphasized the weak practice of knowledge sharing among faculty members at the University of Tabuk, as well as the study of (Maryam, 2019), which found that the Faculty of Economics of the University of Mohamed Khuzestan in question applied knowledge sharing acceptably through its dimensions (knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, knowledge conversion).
From the practical analysis of the research, it was found that the quality of the information in the view of the research sample was good, with a total weighted arithmetic average of (3.48), and an SD of (0.59). This result is consistent with a study (Adaileh & Samhadana, 2013) which emphasized that quality of information has a high percentage from the perspective of employees of the Islamic Bank of Jordan for investment and finance in the provinces of the southern region under study.

The results also confirmed a strong positive significant correlation between the independent variable and the knowledge-sharing behavior and information-quality variable. A statistically significant correlation of 0.590 at a significance level of (0.00) provides sufficient support for acceptance of the first main hypothesis and validation of the first main hypothesis. The results of the research showed that there are significant correlations between the dimensions of knowledge-sharing behaviors with the quality of information, which is indicative of the important role of knowledge-sharing behaviors in the quality of the information in its dimensions. (Accuracy dimension, timeliness dimension, relevancy dimension, completeness dimension). This is consistent with the study. (Oqba & Najmuddin, 2011), emphasized that knowledge management based on high-quality information is highly competitive and has a positive impact on organizations.

## 5.2 Research Recommendations

In the light of the above findings of the researcher, the research has developed some recommendations, as follows:

1) The need for academic leaders at the university in question to enhance knowledge sharing among faculty members of the university, by adopting the value of sharing knowledge as a central and essential value for university work among faculty members.

2) Establishing effective mechanisms through which faculty members participate in preparing and exchanging scientific materials that can be used in training courses.

3) Encouraging members of the university to organize seminars, conferences, and community training courses to provide advisory services to all members of society and its institutions;

4) The academic and administrative authorities of the university in question shall be required to carry out scientific research jointly with members of the scientific community to encourage and support cooperation and the practice of knowledge sharing at the university in question.

5) Developing effective technological means of communication for storing and organizing knowledge and making it a database of all the information required by the Professor with his scientific work and tools, allowing easy access to the required information and thereby increasing its quality at the university in question.

6) The focus of academic senior leadership is on the activation and involvement of all departments in ways that help practice knowledge-sharing to improve and enhance the quality of the information provided to the users of such information, through the granting of financial and moral rewards to professors who prepare new workshops and lectures on the latest developments in the educational environment and the field of competence, especially since the University has a multi-disciplinary faculty and one faculty that includes scientific departments and complements each other.

7) The Presidency of the University should promote and support a culture of knowledge-sharing behavior among the faculty members, as it has an influential role to play in raising the value of information quality.
8) The need to enhance the quality of the information at the University in question by focusing on both the accuracy of the information and the timeliness, relevancy, and completeness of the information, given the benefits and advantages provided by the information.

## References

Abd Al-Hafid, T. A., & Hindawi, Y. F. (2015). The Practice of Knowledge Sharing among Faculty Members: Applied Study in the Faculties of Education in Certain Arab Universities, Egypt. *Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 16*(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.12785/jeps/160416

Abdel Fattah, I. (2008). *Introduction to descriptive and evidentiary statistics using Spss*. Saudi Arabia: Scientific Khawarizmm for publishing and distribution.

Al Rushud, A. R. (2021). Exploring Factors that Influence Academics' Knowledge Sharing Behaviour in Higher Education Institutions. *International Business Research*. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v14n5p40

Al-Adaileh, R. M., & Abu Samhadana, M. K. (2014). *The quality of information and its impact on creative leadership from the perspective of employees of the Jordan Islamic Bank for Investment and Finance in the governorates of the South Region, Jordan* (p. 10).

Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzoogi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. *Journal of Knowledge Management, 11*, 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898

Al-Atum, S. A. (2008). *Methods of Statistics Using SPSS* (2nd ed.). Dar Al-Manahej for publishing and distribution, Amman, Jordan.

Al-Brashdiya, K. A., & Al-Saqqari, M. N. (2014). Sharing of Knowledge among Industrial Enterprises in the Sultanate of Oman. *Journal of Literature and Social Sciences, 2*(5), 108. https://doi.org/10.24200/jass.vol5iss1pp105-122

Al-Hadrami, N. K. (2017). Obstacles and Ways to Overcome the Knowledge Sharing of Faculty members at the University of Tibok. *Specialized Educational Journal, 6*(9), 1-1.

Al-Saadi, M., & Zabar, S. A. (2013). *Information quality and its impact on strategic decisions*. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320843094.

Alshikhi, O., & Abdullah, B., M. (2018). INFORMATION QUALITY: DEFINITIONS, MEASUREMENT, DIMENSIONS, AND RELATIONSHIP WITH DECISION MAKING. *European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 6*(5), 36-42.

Antarah, K. (2018). *The effect of knowledge sharing on the performance of a university professor: A case study of a sample of professors at the Kasdi Merbah University of Bouargla* (Master's thesis). University of Kasdi Merbah and Raqma.

Assefa, T. (2010). Enabling Knowledge Sharing to Promote Innovative Organizations in Africa. In *A Paper to Be Presented at Expert Group Meeting on Harnessing Knowledge to Achieve Mdgs, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia*.

Ballesteros-Rodríguez, J. L., De Saá-Pérez, P., García-Carbonell, N., Martín-Alcázar, F., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2020). The influence of team members' motivation and leaders' behaviour on scientific knowledge sharing in universities. *International Review of Administrative Sciences*. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320921220
Boutaleb, J. (2017). *The impact of organizational climate on knowledge sharing, a case study of professors affiliated with CNEPRU research teams at the level of the Faculty of Economics, Commercial and Management Sciences-University of Jijel* (Master's thesis). University of Mohamed Seddik Ben Yahya-Jijel, Algeria.

Burghada, H., & Dries, N. B. (2015). Shared knowledge on the performance of human resources. A Case Study of the Television and Pre-Digital Production Unit of the Condor Electronique Foundation of Algeria. *Jordanian Journal of Business Administration, 11*(2), 845.

Burhan, M. N., & Rahou, G. I. (1998). *Computerized Information Systems*. Amman: Dar Al-Manahej for publishing and distribution.

Campbell, M. J. (2009). *Identification of Organizational Cultural Factors That Impact Knowledge Sharing*. University of Oregon.

Chung, H. F., Cooke, L., Seaton, J., & Cao, L. (2019). Knowledge sharing behaviour among academics in Chinese universities. In *Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM*.

Daft, R. L. (1992). *Organization Theory and Design* (4th ed.). West publishing company, U.S.

Delone, W., & Mclean. (2003). The Delone and Mclean Model of Information Systems Success: Aten-year Update. *Journal of Management Information Systems*, 4-6.

Diakopoulos, N., & Essa, I. (2008). An Annotation Model for Making Sense of Information Quality in Online Video, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web. *Innovating the nteractive Society*, 363, 31-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/1479190.1479195

Diop, M. A., & Zarika, W. (2016). The Role of Information Quality in Decision-Making Quality (Field Study on Contractors). *Journal of the University of Research, Syria*, 38(19).

Gouda, M. (2009). *Basic Statistical Analysis Using SPSS* (2nd ed.). Wael Publishing House, Amman, Jordan.

Gustavsson, M., & Wänström, C. (2009). Assessing information quality in manufacturing planning and control processes. *International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management*, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710910950333

Hassan, M., Aksel, I., Nawaz, M. S., & Shaukat, S. (2016). Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Business Teachers of Pakistani Universities: An Empirical Testing Of Theory Of Planned Behavior. *European Scientific Journal*. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n13p29

Helfert, M., Foley, O., Ge, M., & Cappiello, C. (2009). *Analysing the effect of security on information quality dimensions*. ECIS 2009-17th European Conference on Information Systems.

Howard, G., Lubbe, S., & Klopper, R. (2011). *The Impact of Information Quality on Information Research* (Alternation Special Edition 4, pp. 288-305).

Islam, Z. M., Hasan, I., Ahmed, S. U., & Ahmed, S. M. (2011). Organizational Culture 6 and Knowledge Sharing: Empirical Evidence from Service Organizations. *African Journal of Business Management, 5*(14), 5900-5909.

Jajik, A., & Obeidat, S. (2014). The effect of knowledge sharing in developing collective competencies. *Algerian Institutions Performance Journal*, 6, 129-130.

Khalil, M. A. (2011). *The Role of Corporate Governance in Achieving the Quality and Reflection of Accounting Information on a Market*. Retrieved from http://www.jpsaccountingforums.com
Kularajasingam, J., Subramaniam, A., Sarjit Singh, D. K., & Sambasivan, M. (2022). The impact of knowledge sharing behaviour and social intelligence of university academics on their performance: The mediating role of competencies. *Journal of Education for Business*. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2021.1887794

Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2012). *Management Information Systems—Managing the digital firm* (12th ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Louis, Q. (2000). Au juste, qu’est-ce que l’information? *Revue Réseaux, Hermès Science Publications*, 18(100), 342. https://doi.org/10.3406/reso.2000.2227

Manaf, H. A., & Marzuki, N. A. (2009). The success of 69 alaysia 69 local authorities: The roles of personality and sharing tacit knowledge. In *International conference on administrative development: Towards excellence in public sector performance,King Faisal Hall, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia*.

March, A. P., Plekhanova, V., & Hamdan, K. S. (2012). Role of quality of information for innovation: Leadership style and information management. *Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) International Conference* (pp. 344-349). https://doi.org/10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2012.6207765

Maryam, S. (2019). *The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on the Quality of the Educational Service of Institutions of Higher Education from the Perspective of Teaching Staff: A Case study of the Faculty of Economic, Commercial and Management Sciences of the University of Mohamed Khayder-Baskra* (MA thesis, Algeria). University of Mohamed Khayder-Baskal,.

Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Kim, Y. (2011). Salespeople Knowledge Sharing Behavior with Coworkers Outside the Sales Unit. *Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 6*(2), 103-122. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134310201

Najm, A. (2010). *Dimensions of Information Quality and Diagnosis of Deviations in Performance*. Jordan, University of Olives.

Nasser, K. L., & Ali, J. H. (2017). The Contribution of Knowledge Sharing to Promoting Demand for Life Insurance Policies. *Iraq. Tikrit Journal of Administrative and Economic Sciences*, 3(39), 42.

Nya, L. T., Ying, H. L., Tuan, H. N., & Ying, S. L. (2010). Motivational Factors in Influencing Knowledge Sharing Among Banks. *International Research Journal of Finance and Economics Malaysia, 44*, 188.

Ozbebek, A., & Toplu, K. E. (2011). Empowered employees’ knowledge sharing behavior. *International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 3*(2), 69-75.

Parmita, S., Atanu, K. N., & Esmail S. S. (2012). Evaluation of government e-tax websites: An information quality and system quality approach. *Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6*(3), 300-321. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161211251281

Plekhanova, V., Hamdan, K., & Smith, P. (2012). A role of quality of information for innovation: Leadership style and information management, Innovations in Information Technology (IIT). *International Conference* (pp. 334-344). https://doi.org/10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2012.6207765

Sarraj, A. H. (2015). The importance of information properties in building organizational decision-making, Hadhramout University of Science and Technology. Yemen. *Journal of Scientific Science and Tseer Sciences, 4*.

Yasin, S. G. (2007). *Knowledge Management: Intuition, systems, technology*. Oman: Dar Al-Manahej for publishing and distribution.
Zawiyah, M. Y., Mohd, B. I., Kamsuriah, A., & Maryati, M. Y. (2009). Knowledge sharing in the public sector in Malaysia: A proposed holistic model. *Information Development, 28*(1). The National University of Malaysia, Malaysia.