Knowledge Sharing in Business Education

sustainability

Review Knowledge Sharing in Business Education

Delio I. Castaneda 1,* and Sergio Cuellar 2

1 Business Department, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Carrera, Bogota 7 40-62, Colombia 2 Innovation Office, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Carrera, Bogota 7 40-62, Colombia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +57-3102857535

Abstract: The paper aims to investigate the evolution of the theme of knowledge sharing in business education in academic literature. Based on an extensive search, it can be stated that this is the first systematic review of this topic. The method employed in this study was a systematic review that covered publications from 1997, when the first paper relating the theme was published in the selected databases, to 2020. The analysis was based on 306 articles. Four periods were identified: embryonic, emergent, growth young and growth highest. One of the findings is that knowledge sharing in business education is growing in virtual environments, especially in the last year, where the COVID 19 pandemic restricted the option of face-to-face education in classrooms. It is recommended that business schools decrease the percentage of time they spend in lectures and increase the time and strategies in which students share knowledge, discuss problems and make decisions based on collective reflection.

Keywords: knowledge sharing; knowledge management; business education

Citation: Castaneda, D.I.; Cuellar, S. 1. Introduction Knowledge Sharing in Business Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, Knowledge sharing is a process of knowledge management fundamental in the context 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/ of business education [1]. Knowledge management impacts business education through su13073657 the mediation of the academic curriculum and the influence of the business environment [2]. Knowledge sharing is essential in the development of skills used in organiza- Academic Editor: tional environments—for example, teamwork [3], leadership [4], culture management [5], Constantin Bratianu human resources practices [6], and sustainable innovation [7,8]. Knowledge sharing is also essential in the development of competences for business education. Some of the Received: 22 February 2021 most relevant skills in business education that can be developed through knowledge shar- Accepted: 15 March 2021 ing are problem-solving, creative thinking, teamwork, decision making, communication, Published: 25 March 2021 negotiation, critical thinking, leadership, and creativity. Knowledge sharing is defined as the process where individuals mutually exchange Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral their tacit and explicit knowledge and jointly create new knowledge [9]. It is also the with regard to jurisdictional claims in ability to transfer framed experiences, information, and expert insights into practices [10]. published maps and institutional affil- Knowledge sharing is the interaction between human actors where the raw material is iations. knowledge [11]. This behavior is the act of making self-knowledge available to others. Knowledge sharing is critical for the creation and application of knowledge and solving complex problems. Sometimes, knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer are used as interchangeable terms [12]. However, Chou and Tang [13] found that knowledge transfer Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. emerged earlier and has a more general scope that covers multidisciplinary subjects, while Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. knowledge sharing is more focused on the knowledge management context. This article is an open access article A blocker of knowledge sharing is knowledge hoarding, which is defined as an distributed under the terms and individual’s deliberate and strategic concealment of knowledge [14]. This occurs when conditions of the Creative Commons a worker purposely keeps critical knowledge to him. According to Bilgino˘glu[15], the Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// knowledge hoarder fears that the more he shares, the more he gives power away. Hoarding creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ knowledge is a common inclination of employees in organizations where competition is 4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073657 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 2 of 19

promoted [16]. It also happens when an employee perceives significant time pressure [17]. Knowledge hoarding is related to knowledge donation because when people hoard some unrequested knowledge, they avoid sharing what somebody else could take advantage of [18]. This behavior weakens performance at an interpersonal level [14]. In the context of education, knowledge sharing is the cornerstone of collaborative learning. According to Prince [19], knowledge exchange improves academic achievement, the quality of interpersonal interactions, and attitudes to work with others. Knowledge sharing should be part of the discourse within the business school community of higher education [20]. Bratianu et al. [21] propose that the volatile, uncertain, complex and am- biguous business environmental compel a paradigm that shifts from knowledge transfer to business competence development. According to the authors, the objective of business education should be to prepare the actual students for future jobs and professional achievements. There are recent studies that report the role of knowledge sharing in business education and its relevance in organizational contexts [22]. How to work collaboratively in groups is more important than ever because the amount of teamwork expected from employees and managers has increased in recent years [23]. A fundamental process in group work is knowledge sharing. Additionally, typical challenges with interdisciplinary projects are communication issues and knowledge sharing workloads [24]. Knowledge sharing is increasingly common in virtual environments. Online education research has studied the role of cooperative learning through discussion [25]. In this direction, it was found that incorporating a discussion forum on Facebook enhanced student economic exam scores [26]; additionally, Padlet, an interactive virtual wall, was an effective tool to share knowledge online in a finance course [27]. There is also evidence that knowledge sharing improves peer assessment [28]. Not all tools that involve knowledge sharing have been evaluated as irrefutably effective. Many studies show that the case method can develop collaborative skills in students [29]; however, another study found no significant correlation between text-based discussion forums and grades [30]. There is also evidence that the case method, an interactive tool, is as effective as the lecture method in respect of learning outcomes [31]. Coceiru, Katz and McDonald [32] explored management students’ interactions, comparing traditional classes and classrooms that they called organizations, where students worked in groups to create and manage an organization. Results indicated that the classroom as an organization involved students in a better cohesive network of interactions compared to traditional classes. Business and nonbusiness students’ attitudes were compared regarding classroom knowledge sharing [33]. It was found that business students wanted more freedom over group functions and were more concerned with the equitable distribution of work. Business classes frequently use designs that do not promote student interaction [34]. Some blockers of knowledge sharing in business education are teacher-centered habits, learners’ lack of openness and reciprocity, and competing priorities of students [35]. The constructivist theory of learning states that peer interaction is crucial in student development [36,37]. Peer learning provides a positive impact on overall learning [38]. Knowledge exchange and active participation promote academic achievement [39]. The literature focusing on the influence of knowledge management on business education is scarce [2]. After extensive research on the subject, it can be stated that this is the first systematic review about the topic of knowledge sharing in business education. Twenty-three years have passed since the publication of the first article on this area in the Scopus and Web of Science databases and it is pertinent to evaluate how the subject has evolved. The purpose of this paper is to present the evolution of knowledge sharing within the academic business education literature. The evolution is defined in terms of the number of publications by year, the most representative papers and authors by citations, the lifecycle stages and their characteristic topics, and the keywords map to visualize the most representative concepts. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 3 of 19

There are related works such as bibliometric studies on knowledge management [40–43], bibliometric works on knowledge sharing [44], a review of knowledge sharing in education [45], and a review of knowledge sharing in higher education [46]. The next part of this article has the following structure: the method of the study, the results associated with the purpose of the research, the conclusions, and some practical implications from the results.

2. Methods The method employed in this study was a systematic review, covering knowledge sharing in business education publications from 1997, when the first paper relating the topic was published in the selected databases, to 2020 (inclusive). The methodology proposed by Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart was followed [47]. The research protocol addressed the following question: how has literature on knowledge sharing in business schools evolved from 1997 to 2020? The study used two databases to obtain the literature associated with the research question: the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus. The search string for the Web of Science was: ((“business education” OR “business school” OR “master business administration” or mba OR “business facult*”) AND (“knowledge sharing” OR “knowledge exchange” OR “knowledge management” OR “knowledge transfer”)). The search string for Scopus was: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“business education” OR “business school” OR “master business administration” OR mba) AND (“knowledge sharing” OR “knowledge exchange” OR “knowledge management” OR “knowledge transfer”)). To identify the evolution of the topic knowledge sharing in business schools, the lifecycle theory was applied [48], which claims that areas of knowledge develop according to an S-curve operationalized in four stages: emergent, growing, maturation, and saturation. Because the issue of knowledge sharing in business schools is not yet in maturation, this article defined the following stages: embryonic, emergent, growth young and growth highest. To identify the development of the relationship in time, the performance measures used were the number of articles and, to generate the S-curve, the accumulated number of articles. A complementary analysis of lifecycle was implemented using the methodology developed by Mogee [49], which uses two performance indicators to define the stages of the evolution of a topic: the number of publications and the number of authors per year. To identify seminal articles or those that can be considered foundational in the generation of the literature on knowledge sharing in business schools, two bibliometric indicators based on social network analysis were used: degree centrality, which indicates the number of times that a document was referenced by other documents in the analyzed network, and node-betweenness centrality, which indicates the capacity of nodes to connect different clusters and research areas [50]. In each stage, the most important articles were recognized using the methodology followed by Betancur, Villa-Espinal, Osorio-Gomez, Cuellar and Suarez [51]. In this methodology, to normalize and avoid discrimination by the age of the articles, the total forward citations were identified each year and compared with those of the articles analyzed for the total number of citations in the year of publication. Additionally, at each stage, trends were analyzed using unsupervised clustering methodologies, a machine learning approach that permits the identification of the main topics of each period [52–54]. Additionally, bibliometric techniques oriented to the recognition of publication frequency and based on pattern analysis were used. Finally, an analysis of key terms was developed in which the core ones were identified by their H index. Emergent topics were those that had recently appeared for the first time in titles, abstracts, and keywords. Declining topics were also recognized—those that had not featured as much in the literature as in previous years. Growing topics were those that have Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19

time in titles, abstracts, and keywords. Declining topics were also recognized—those that Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 had not featured as much in the literature as in previous years. Growing topics 4were of 19 those that have augmented in publications in recent years. Some techniques used in this research were KNIME for data mining, data cleaning and data filtering [52], Gephi for social network analysis [53], and Vosviewer for generating topic analysis for each stage augmented in publications in recent years. Some techniques used in this research were [55]. KNIME for data mining, data cleaning and data ﬁltering [52], Gephi for social network analysis [53], and Vosviewer for generating topic analysis for each stage [55]. 3. Results 3. ResultsBelow are presented several analyses, such as the number of publications in the field fromBelow 1997 to are 2020, presented the main several authors analyses, and articles, such as the numberlifecycles of stages, publications and the in keyword the ﬁeld frommap. 1997 to 2020, the main authors and articles, the lifecycles stages, and the keyword map.

3.1. Publications on Knowledge Sharing and Business Education The firstfirst report is aboutabout thethe numbernumber ofof articlesarticles publishedpublished onon knowledgeknowledge sharingsharing inin business education. The The range range of of publication publication goes goes from from 1997 1997 to to2020 2020 and and is ispresented presented in inFigure Figure 1. 1Based. Based on onthe the traditional traditional lifecycle lifecycle me methodology,thodology, articles articles per per year year were were taken taken as a asmeasure a measure of growth. of growth. The The figure figure shows shows the the evolution evolution in in the the development development of of the topictopic knowledge sharing in business education. In this sense, it was found that betweenbetween 19971997 and 2002,2002, thisthis field field went went through through an an initial initial phase phase of lowof low scientific scientific production production and fromand from 2003 to2003 2020, to it2020, has beenit has in been a growth in a phasegrowth characterized phase characterized by a relevant by productiona relevant production of knowledge, of exceptknowledge, in the except years 2004,in the 2009 years and 2004, 2015. 2009 and 2015.

Figure 1. Growth in published articles of knowledge sharing in business education.

3.2. Main Articles and Authors FigureTo 1. recognizeGrowth in published the articles articles that of can know be consideredledge sharing as in buildingbusiness education. blocks and seminal in the field, and thus can identify the roots of knowledge sharing in business education, a network3.2. Main ofArticles backward and Authors citations was developed with the papers obtained by the search equationTo recognize (Figure2 ).the The articles figure that shows can be that considered certain articles as building are the blocks theoretical and seminal bases of in the the fieldfield, (A,and D thus and can C). Otheridentify relevant the roots bridging of knowledge papers are sharing W, Y, R,in Xbusiness and $. education, a network of backward citations was developed with the papers obtained by the search equa- tion (Figure 2). The figure shows that certain articles are the theoretical bases of the field (A, D and C). Other relevant bridging papers are W, Y, R, X and $. From the total number of articles in this review, the most relevant ones were filtered by citations (Table 1). Some articles have a high number of citations and simultaneously fulfill the role of a bridge, such as A, B, C, and D. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 5 of 19

Figure 2. Main clusters of related papers. Figure 2. Main clusters of related papers. From the total number of articles in this review, the most relevant ones were ﬁltered Tableby citations 1. Most representative (Table1). Some papers articles about have knowledge a high numbersharing in of business citations education. and simultaneously fulﬁll the role of a bridge, such as A, B, C, and D. Key Articles in the Network Relevance in the Network Label [HIGHLYCITED] Table 1. Most representative[56] papers about knowledge sharing in business education. [A] [BRIDGE] [HIGHLYCITED] Key Articles in the[57] Network Relevance in the Network Label [B] [BRIDGE] [HIGHLYCITED] [56] [HIGHLYCITED] [A] [58] [BRIDGE] [C] [HIGHLYCITED] [BRIDGE] [57] [B] [BRIDGE] [HIGHLYCITED] [59] [HIGHLYCITED] [D] [58] [BRIDGE] [C] [BRIDGE] [60] [HIGHLYCITED] [E] [HIGHLYCITED] [59] [D] [61] [BRIDGE] [HIGHLYCITED] [F] [60][62] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [E] [G] [61][63] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [F] [H] [62][64] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [G] [I] [63] [HIGHLYCITED] [H] [64][65] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [I] [J] [65][66] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [J] [K] [66][67] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [K] [L] [67][68] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [L] [M] [68][69] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [M] [N] [69] [HIGHLYCITED] [N] [70][70] [HIGHLYCITED][HIGHLYCITED] [O] [O] [71][71] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [P] [P] [72][72] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [Q] [Q] [73][73] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [R] [R] [74] [BRIDGE] [S] [75][74] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [T] [S] [76][75] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [U] [T] [77][76] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [V] [U] [78][77] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [W] [V] [79][78] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [X] [W] [80] [BRIDGE] [Y] [81][79] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [Z] [X] [82][80] [BRIDGE][BRIDGE] [*] [Y] [81] [BRIDGE] [Z] [82] [BRIDGE] [*] Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 6 of 19

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19

3.3. Lifecycle Stages Table2 presents the stages, years, mean of the number of records, and mean of the 3.3. Lifecycle Stages number of authors of research on knowledge sharing in business education. It was found that theTable study 2 presents of the topic the stages, is currently years, in mean the highest of the stagenumber of growth.of records, and mean of the number of authors of research on knowledge sharing in business education. It was found thatTable the 2. Lifecyclestudy of stages. the topic is currently in the highest stage of growth.

Mean of Mean of Table 2. Lifecycle stages. Number of STAGE Years Number of Number of Mean of Number Mean of Number NumberRecords of STAGE Years Records Authors of Records of Authors Records Embryonic 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 4 3 13 Embryonic 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 4 3 13 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, Emergent 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 19 17 47 Emergent 2015 19 17 47 2015 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, Growth young2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 19 35 95 Growth young 2016 19 35 95 2008, 2011,2016 2014, 2017, 2018, Growth Highest2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2018, 26 52 151 Growth Highest 2019, 2020 26 52 151 2019, 2020

The first ﬁrst stage, the embryonic, presented the beginning of the studystudy ofof knowledgeknowledge sharing in business education. This stage o occurredccurred between 1997 and 2001 (color blue in Figure3 3).). TheThe average average number number of of authors authors and and articles articles shows shows the the slow slow growth growth characteristic character- isticof this ofperiod. this period. The second The second stage, stage, emerging, emerging, began inbegan 2002 in and 2002 lasted and until lasted 2006 until and 2006 returned and in 2015 (color orange in Figure3). The average number of publications in this phase was returned in 2015 (color orange in Figure 3). The average number of publications in this 19 per year and the average number of authors was 17, showing growth compared to the phase was 19 per year and the average number of authors was 17, showing growth previous stage. In the following years, there were transitions in the stages of growth young compared to the previous stage. In the following years, there were transitions in the and growth highest. The growth young stage occurred in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and stages of growth young and growth highest. The growth young stage occurred in 2007, 2016, with an average of 19 articles and 35 authors per year (color green in Figure3). The 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2016, with an average of 19 articles and 35 authors per year growth highest stage occurred in the years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (color green in Figure 3). The growth highest stage occurred in the years 2008, 2011, 2014, (color red in Figure3). 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (color red in Figure 3).

Figure 3. Lifecycle analysis using the number of publications and numbernumber of authors.

Figure 44 presentspresents thethe mostmost importantimportant authorsauthors inin thethe fourfour proposedproposed stagesstages usingusing twotwo bibliometric indicators—theindicators—the number number of of publications publications (X -axis)(X-axis) and and the the accumulated accumulated citations cita- (tionsY-axis). (Y-axis). In the In embryonic the embryonic stage, thestage, two the authors two authors with the with highest the number highest ofnumber accumulated of ac- cumulatedcitations were citations Birkinshaw were [Birkinshaw83] with the work[83] wi entitledth the “whywork isentitled knowledge “why management is knowledge so management so difficult?” and the one of Cheng [84]. In the emerging stage, the most cited authors were Wilson [85] with a critical article on knowledge management and Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 7 of 19 Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19

difﬁcult?” and the one of Cheng [84]. In the emerging stage, the most cited authors were GrayWilson [86]. [85 In] withthe growth a critical young article stage, on knowledge the most managementcited authors andand Grayworks [86 were]. In theKanawat- growth tanachaiyoung stage, [71], which the most is about cited authorsthe impact and of works knowledge were Kanawattanachai coordination on [virtual71], which teams, is about and Basonthe impact [87], ofon knowledgepublic sector coordination innovation. on In virtual this stage, teams, Chen and Bason [73,86] [87 stood], on publicout for sector the numberinnovation. of studies, In this especially stage, Chen the [ 73article,86] stoodabout outcollege for thestudents’ number use of of studies, e-learning especially systems. the Inarticle the highest about collegestage of students’ growth, use the of most e-learning cited authors systems. were In the Hidalgo highest and stage Albors of growth, [88] aboutthe most innovation cited authors techniques, were Hidalgoand the andauthor Albors with [ 88the] about highest innovation number techniques,of articles was and Doctorthe author [89–91], with with the highestworks numberon users of of articles knowledge was Doctor repositories [89–91 ],in with a management works on users insti- of tute,knowledge the dynamics repositories of knowledge in a management sharing institute,in a management the dynamics institute, of knowledge and capturing sharing inin tellectuala management capital institute,in a business and capturingschool institution. intellectual capital in a business school institution.

FigureFigure 4. 4. KeyKey authors authors based based on on the the number number of of publications publications and and forward forward citations. citations. On the other hand, the different coauthorship networks were analyzed (Figure5). On the other hand, the different coauthorship networks were analyzed (Figure 5). This work was carried out in a transversal manner to observe the community that has This work was carried out in a transversal manner to observe the community that has been built on this topic, which cumulatively allows us to recognize authors who serve as been built on this topic, which cumulatively allows us to recognize authors who serve as bridges between communities and key authors due to their degree of collaboration. For bridges between communities and key authors due to their degree of collaboration. For this examination, the social network analysis and the indicators betweenness centrality this examination, the social network analysis and the indicators betweenness centrality and degree centrality were used as the methodology. This showed that the research and degree centrality were used as the methodology. This showed that the research on on knowledge sharing in business education is a rising topic and that there is no large knowledge sharing in business education is a rising topic and that there is no large for- formal community. The most important network is made up of 13 authors; the second mal community. The most important network is made up of 13 authors; the second most most important network is formed by eight authors. According to this analysis, the most important network is formed by eight authors. According to this analysis, the most rel- relevant authors are Chen, C. [92], Bontis [93] and Levin [94,95]. evant authors are Chen, C. [92], Bontis [93] and Levin [94,95].

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 8 of 19 Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19

(A)

(B)

FigureFigure 5.5. KeyKey authorsauthors byby coauthorshipcoauthorship networknetwork byby degreedegree centralitycentrality ((AA)) andand betweennessbetweenness centralitycentrality ((BB).).

3.3.1.3.3.1. Embryonic StageStage InIn thethe embryonicembryonic stage,stage, 1313 articlesarticles werewere published.published. AlthoughAlthough thethe numbernumber ofof articlesarticles isis small,small, FigureFigure6 6 shows shows the the most most signiﬁcant significant topics: topics: the the problems problems that that business business schools schools havehave withwith informationinformation ﬂows,flows, thethe offeroffer ofof coursescourses andand thethe generationgeneration ofof toolstools toto teachteach knowledgeknowledge managementmanagement inin universitiesuniversities andand thethe skillsskills inin knowledgeknowledge managementmanagement thatthat businessbusiness studentsstudents shouldshould develop.develop. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19 Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 9 of 19

Figure 6. Keywords analysis in the embryonic stage (1997–2001). Figure 6. Keywords analysis in the embryonic stage (1997–2001).

ConcerningConcerning the the most most representative representative articles identified identified in the embryonic stage ((TableTable3 ), 3),Hafstad Hafstad [96 ][96] reported reported results results of a of knowledge a knowledge management management project project at the at Norwegianthe Norwegian School Schoolof Economics of Economics and Business and Business Administration. Administrati Birchallon. Birchall and Smith and [Smith97] discussed [97] discussed the opportu- the opportunitiesnities afforded afforded by multimedia by multimedia and groupware and groupware to create to enhanced create enhanced learning learning opportunities op- portunitieswith MBA with students MBA using students a dynamic using a dynami case analysis.c case analysis. The purpose The purpose of the articleof the article of Ruth, ofTheobald Ruth, Theobald and Frizzell and [Frizzell98] was [98] the was diffusion the diffusion of knowledge of knowledge management management concepts con- and ceptscases and into cases university into university courses. Chengcourses. [ 84Cheng] developed [84] developed and tested and a tested model a ofmodel perceived of perceivedtransfer of transfer knowledge of knowledge of MBA studentsof MBA studen to thets job. to the Birkinshaw job. Birkinshaw [78] identified [78] identified the most thefrequent most problemsfrequent problems in knowledge in knowledge management management and suggested and suggested five steps five to steps resolve to them.re- solveBaladi them. [99] documentedBaladi [99] documented the recognition the recogn of Ericsonition of Business Ericson ConsultingBusiness Consulting for more for glob- morealization globalization and knowledge and knowledge sharing. sharing. Finally, AlbertFinally, and Albert Thomas and Thomas [100] explored [100] explored the Open theUniversity Open University Business Business School’s School´s new course new on course knowledge on knowledge management management which includedwhich includedsynchronous synchronous dialogue dialogue via an online via an tutorial. online tutorial.

Table 3. Papers in the embryonic stage. Table 3. Papers in the embryonic stage. Normalized Forward Title Publication Year Authors Normalized Forward Title Publication Year Authors Citations Citations The knowledge management process in a business school environment 1997 Hafstad, S. 1 DevelopingThe knowledge the skills management of technologists process in in a strategic decision making—A Birchall, D. and 19971998 Hafstad, S. 11 business schoolmulti-media environment case approach Smith, M. DevelopingWhy the skillsis knowledge of technologists management in so difficult? 2001 Birkinshaw, J. 0.819672131 strategic decisionTest of making—Athe MBA knowledge multi-media and skills transfer1998 2000 Birchall, D. and Smith, Cheng, M. E. 0.739130435 1 case approach Knowledge and competence management: Ericsson business consulting 1999 Baladi P. 0.702702703 WhyUniversity- is knowledgebasedmanagement approach to so the difﬁcult? diffusion of knowledge 2001 manage- Birkinshaw,Stephen, J. Jeffrey and 0.819672131 1999 0.243243243 Test of the MBA knowledgement and concepts skills transfer and practice 2000 Cheng, E.Virgil 0.739130435 A new approach to computer-aided distance learning: The ‘Auto- Albert, S. and Knowledge and competence management: 19992000 Baladi P.0.239130435 0.702702703 Ericsson business consultingmated Tutor’ Thomas, C. University-based approach to the diffusion of 1999 Stephen, Jeffrey and Virgil 0.243243243 knowledge management concepts and practice A new approach to computer-aided distance 2000 Albert, S. and Thomas, C. 0.239130435 learning: The ‘Automated Tutor’ Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19 Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 10 of 19

3.3.2. Emergent Stage 3.3.2.In Emergent the emerging Stage stage, 47 articles were published. Some of the emphases were: skills associatedIn the with emerging knowledge stage, 47sharing, articles knowl wereedge published. transfer Some in MBA of the students, emphases knowledge were: skills creationassociated based with on knowledge communities sharing, of practice knowledge and active transfer learning in MBA based students, on knowledge knowledge sharingcreation in based business on communities school students of practice (Figure and 7). active learning based on knowledge sharing in business school students (Figure7).

Figure 7. KeywordsKeywords analysis analysis in in em emergentergent stage stage (2002–2006 (2002–2006 and and 2015). 2015).

InIn the the emergent emergent stage, stage, six six of of the the most most rele relevantvant articles articles are are presented presented below below (Table (Table 4).4 ). Wilson [[67,85]67,85] examinedexamined thethe conceptconcept of of knowledge knowledge management management in in the the presentation presentation of busi-of businessness schools. schools. Barack Barack and and Rafaeli Rafaeli [83, 101[83,1] provided01] provided evidence evidence that that web-based web-based undertakings under- takingspromote promote active learning active learning and knowledge and knowledge sharing. sharing. Gray [Gray68,86 [68,86]] recommended recommended that policy-that policymakersmakers should should support support small small enterprises enterpri startedses started by graduates. by graduates. Tho andThoTrang and Trang [84,102 ] [84,102]proposed proposed that knowledge that knowledge learned learned from business from business schools schools by students by students and their and intrinsic their intrinsicmotivation motivation affect the affect transfer the transfer of knowledge of knowledge from business from business schools schools to organizations. to organiza- Tip- tions.pins [ 85Tippins,103] identiﬁed[85,103] identified barriers barriers that inhibit that knowledgeinhibit knowledge management management within within the college the collegecontext. context. Liyanage Liyanage and Poon and [86 ,Poon104] argued[86,104] that argued technology that technology and innovation and innovation management managementeducation should education be critical should areas be critical in business areas schools.in business schools.

TableTable 4. MainMain papers papers in in the the emergent emergent stage stage..

NormalizedNormalized Forward TitleTitle Publication YearPublication Year Authors Authors CitationsCitations The nonsenseThe of nonsense ‘knowledge of management’ ‘knowledge management’ 2002 2002 Wilson, T. Wilson, T. 0.959619952 0.959619952 On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as means for Barack, M. and On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as 2004 0.951048951 means for web-basedweb-based knowledge knowledge sharing sharing in in learning 2004 Barack, M. and Rafaeli,Rafaeli, S. S. 0.951048951 Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in learning 2006 Gray, C. 0.805825243 entrepreneurial small firms Absorptive capacity, knowledge management Can knowledge be transferred from business schools to2006 business Gray, C. 0.805825243 and innovation in entrepreneurial small ﬁrms Tho, N. and organizations through in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA 2015 0.635416667 Can knowledge be transferred from business Trang, N. findings schools to business organizations through Implementing knowledge management in academia: Teaching2015 the Tho, N. and Trang, N. 0.635416667 in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA 2003 Tippins, M. 0.443478261 ﬁndings teachers TechnologyImplementing and knowledge innovation management management in learning in the knowledge Liyanage, S. and 20032003 Tippins, M.0.391304348 0.443478261 academia:economy: Teaching A the techno-managerial teachers approach Poon, P. Technology and innovation management learning in the knowledge economy: A 2003 Liyanage, S. and Poon, P. 0.391304348 techno-managerial approach SustainabilitySustainability2021 2021, ,13 13,, 3657 x FOR PEER REVIEW 1119 of of 19 19

3.3.3.3.3.3. GrowthGrowth YoungYoung StageStage AtAt thisthis stage, stage, 95 95 publications publications were were found. found. The mainThe main topics topics identiﬁed identified by the textby the mining text analysismining were:analysis the were: relationship the relationship of knowledge of knowledge sharing with sharing social with networks social and networks managerial and practices,managerial knowledge practices, managementknowledge management and its relationship and its relationship with competitive with competitive advantages ad- in businessvantages schoolsin business and schools MBA students, and MBA transfer students, of knowledgetransfer of knowledge in educational in educational programs, theprograms, experience the ofexperience companies of with companies business wi schoolsth business about knowledgeschools about exchange, knowledge business ex- schoolschange, and business virtual schools learning, and information virtual lear managementning, information systems andmanagement knowledge systems acquisition, and communitiesknowledge acquisition, of practice communities and knowledge of practice sharing (Figureand knowledge8). sharing (Figure 8).

FigureFigure 8.8. KeywordsKeywords analysisanalysis inin growthgrowth youngyoung stage—2007,stage—2007,2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2012, 2012, 2013, 2013, and and 2016. 2016.

FiveFive ofof the the most most outstanding outstanding articles articles in the ingrowth the growth young young stage arestage described are described in Table 5in. KanawattanachaiTable 5. Kanawattanachai and Yoo and [53, 71Yoo], working[53,71], working with virtual with teamsvirtual of teams MBA of students, MBA students, found thatfound at that the endat the of end the project,of the project, task-knowledge task-knowledge coordination coordination emerged emerged as a construct as a construct that impactedthat impacted team team performance. performance. Chen, Chen, Wu, andWu, Wu and [74 Wu,92 ][74,92] investigated investigated the coproduction the coproduc- of knowledgetion of knowledge and dialogic and relationships dialogic relationships via the collaboration via the collaboration between business between practitioners business andpractitioners academic and researchers. academic Chen, researchers. Chen and Chen, Kinshuk Chen [55 and,73] usingKinshuk a field [55,73] survey using of collegea field andsurvey MBA of studentscollege foundand MBA that attitude,students subjectivefound that norms attitude, and websubjective self-efficacy norms were and good web predictorsself-efficacy of knowledgewere good sharingpredictors intention. of knowledge Redpath [87sharing,105] disputed intention. the Redpath assumption [87,105] that onlinedisputed classes the lackassumption the necessary that online interaction classes and lack collaboration the necessary to supportinteraction a quality and collabora- business education.tion to support Wright, a quality Piva, Moseybusiness and educatio Lockettn. [Wright,54,72] identified Piva, Mosey challenges and Lockett to business [54,72] educationidentified schoolschallenges to transfer to business knowledge education to enable schools academic to transfer entrepreneurship. knowledge to enable academic entrepreneurship.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 12 of 19

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19

Table 5. Main papers in the growth young stage.

Normalized Forward TitleTable Publication 5. Main papers Year in the growth young Authors stage. Citations The impact of knowledge coordination Normalized Forward Title 2007Publication Kanawattanachai, Year P. andAuthors Yoo, Y. 0.780738 on virtual team performance over time Citations The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team perfor- Kanawattanachai, P. and Examining the factors inﬂuencing 2007 0.780738 participants’ knowledgemance sharing over time Yoo, Y. Examining the factors influencing participants’ knowledge2009 shar- Chen I., Chen, N. andChen Kinshuk, I., Chen, D. N. and 0.573077 behavior in virtual learning 2009 0.573077 ingcommunities behavior in virtual learning communities Kinshuk, D. A sustainable collaborative research dialogue between practi- Chen, C., Wu, Y. and A sustainable collaborative research 2013 0.542857 dialogue between practitionerstioners and andacademics 2013 Chen, C., Wu, Y. and Wu,Wu, W. W. 0.542857 Confronting the Bias Against On-Line Learning in Management academics 2012 Redpath, L. 0.392523 Education Confronting the Bias Against On-Line 2012 Redpath,Wright, L. M., Piva, E., 0.392523 Learning in Management Education Academic entrepreneurship and business schools 2009 Mosey, S. and Lockett, 0.234615 Academic entrepreneurship and Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S. and 2009 A. 0.234615 business schools Lockett, A. 3.3.4. Growth Highest Stage 3.3.4. GrowthAt this stage, Highest 151 Stage articles were published. Some of the most studied topics were: knowledgeAt this stage,sharing 151 and articles institutional were published.repositories, Some social of capital the most and studiedknowledge topics exchange, were: knowledgeknowledge sharing networks and in institutional business schools, repositories, knowledge social transfer capital and between knowledge business exchange, manag- knowledgeers and students networks of in these business schools, schools, and knowledge the skills transferassociated between with businessknowledge managers sharing and(Figure students 9). of these schools, and the skills associated with knowledge sharing (Figure9).

FigureFigure 9. 9.Keywords Keywords analysis analysis in in growth growth highest highest stage—2008, stage—2008, 2011, 2011, 2014, 2014, 2017–2020. 2017–2020.

This is a sample of the most relevant articles in the growth highest stage (Table6). Hernaus, Cerne, Connelly, Vokic and Skerlavaj [82] contributed to research by focusing on academic situations where colleagues respond to explicit requests by hiding knowledge. Levin, Walter and Murnighan [95], in a study with MBA students, suggested that dormant relationships can be a valuable source of knowledge and social capital. Hidalgo and Albors [88] provided evidence to support that business schools are developing innovative methodologies and tools based on knowledge. Ungureanu and Bertolotti [106] suggested that if business schools loosen their programs’ infrastructure and encourage trial and error interaction they can increase knowledge sharing between academics and practitioners. Perry-Smith and Shalley [107] in a study with MBA teams concluded that both outside ties with nationality-heterogeneous individuals and weak outside ties independently facilitate team creativity. Finally, Charosky, Leveratto, Hassi, Papageorgiou, Ramos-Castro and Bragos [108] presented results of a learning experience carried out by three universities. They found that engineering students increased their ability to ideate more disruptive solutions based on their interactions with business and design students.

Table 6. Main papers in the stage of highest growth.

Normalized Forward Title Publication Year Authors Citations Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., when competitive individuals are asked 2018 Connelly, C., Vokic, N. and 0.681818 to collaborate Škerlavaj, M. Levin, D., Walter, J. and Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting 2011 0.396296 Murnighan, J. Innovation management techniques and 2008 Hidalgo, A. and Albors, J. 0.389034 tools: A review from theory and practice Building and breaching boundaries at once: An exploration of how management academics and practitioners 2018 Ungureanu, P. and Bertolotti, F. 0.30303 perform boundary work in executive classrooms A Social composition view of team creativity: The role of member 2014 Perry-Smith, J. and Shalley, C. 0.302326 nationality-heterogeneous ties outside of the team Challenge-based education: An approach Charosky, G; Leveratto, L; Hassi, to innovation through multidisciplinary 2018 L; Papageorgiou, K; 0.242424 teams of students using design thinking Ramos-Castro, J; Bragos, R.

3.4. Keywords Based on the tool developed by Lee, Lee, Seol and Park [109], a keyword map, divided into four quadrants to visualize the evolution of concepts about knowledge sharing in business education, was created. A topic is considered core according to the relevance given by the H index. A topic is declining when it is important in the embryonic and emerging stages, but not in the growth stages. On the other hand, a theme is deﬁned as growing when it has increased in the last stages. Finally, a subject is emerging when it appeared in the last stage with relevance. Table7 presents the analysis of keywords according to four criteria. The most representative core keywords were knowledge management, knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing, business education, knowledge creation and knowledge exchange. The three more frequent growing keywords were knowledge sharing, higher education and e-learning. The emerging keywords were entrepreneurship education, management, intellectual capital and problem-based learning. The declining keywords on publications on knowledge Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 14 of 19

sharing in business education were human resources management and curriculum development.

Table 7. Analysis of keywords about knowledge sharing in business education.

Emerging Topics Declining Topics Core Topics Growing Topics Knowledge Entrepreneurship Human resource Knowledge sharing management management Education Knowledge transfer Higher education management Intellectual capital Curriculum Knowledge sharing E learning Problem-based development Knowledge exchange learning and creation

4. Discussion and Conclusions In the research on knowledge sharing in business education, four stages were identified in the period 1997–2020, which were called: embryonic, emergent, young growth and high growth. The number of articles published has been increasing. The current period, high growth, so far includes 151 articles. Concerning networks of authorship, the number is still low. Only two of them are considered significant. According to the analysis that was carried out, there are no large clusters of thematic axes on the subject of knowledge sharing in business education. In the embryonic stage, articles were published on the problems that business schools have with information flows, the generation of tools to teach knowledge management and the skills in knowledge management that a business student should develop. In the emergent stage, there were no topics with a significant volume of articles. Some themes were: teaching knowledge management in business schools, active learning and knowledge sharing, the motivation of business students to transfer knowledge, barriers that inhibit knowledge management and the relevance of technology and innovation management education in business schools. In the growth young stage, although no topic was a trend, there is a nascent interest in tools for knowledge sharing in business education. The main themes identified were knowledge sharing in social networks, knowledge management, transfer of knowledge in educational programs, the experience of companies with business schools about knowledge exchange, business schools and virtual learning, and communities of practice. In the growth highest stage there is a marked interest in tools associated with knowledge sharing in business education. Some current topics are social capital and knowledge exchange, knowledge networks in business schools, knowledge transfer between business managers and students of these schools, skills associated with knowledge sharing, and knowledge sharing versus knowledge hiding in academic situations. Based on the keyword analysis, the considered core words are knowledge management, knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange; the main emerging words are entrepreneurship education and problem-based learning; the principal declining words are human resource management and curriculum development; finally, the main growing words are higher education and e-learning. In conclusion, knowledge sharing in business education is a rising research topic, where there are still no strong networks of researchers. Additionally, the identification of the best tools to share and build knowledge in the training process of business education students is under development. Finally, research on knowledge sharing as a means for generating innovations in the context of business schools is incipient. From this study, further research is recommended on some topics: knowledge networks between students from different business schools, knowledge sharing between organizational managers and business students, innovative tools for sharing knowledge in times of the COVID 19 pandemic and the development of knowledge sharing competences in students applied to changing organizational contexts. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 15 of 19

5. Practical Implications There are multiple lessons from this research that can be applied to universities and institutions dedicated to training students in business education who, once graduated, will manage companies and public organizations. Knowledge sharing is essential in the development of skills in business students that will later be used in organizations—for example, teamwork, leadership, culture management, and sustainable innovation. In complex contexts such as the current one, knowledge sharing is the main mechanism to design collaborative solutions tailored to respond to environmental needs. Additionally, in their role as leaders, administrators must constantly interact with their work teams to influence them in the strategies planned to achieve results. In the same direction, culture management requires persuasion skills, which are based on the exchange of ideas and beliefs. Innovation is another field where knowledge sharing is necessary to design or improve products and services. There is evidence that the knowledge exchange improves academic achievement, the quality of interpersonal interactions, and attitudes to work with others. As a consequence, business schools should decrease the percentage of time they spend in lectures and increase the time and strategies in which students share knowledge, discuss problems and make decisions based on collective reflection. Some examples of techniques are discussion of business cases, group simulations, workshops, challenges, and projects. Knowledge sharing has been growing in virtual environments, especially in the last year, where the COVID 19 pandemic restricted the option of face-to-face education in classrooms. Online education research has studied the role of cooperative learning through discussion and has found effectiveness in students’ performance. The motivation of students increases when they participate in online group activities. Online sharing also contributes to focus the attention of students on the class topic. According to research, one of the main blockers of knowledge sharing in business education is teacher-centered habits, where the main expected role of students is to be absorbers of information. Universities should promote online materials and webinars to their professors about how to move from traditional teaching to learning focused on participants. Students learn by doing, exchanging knowledge, expectations, and beliefs about reality. When students are active in their learning, content retention increases. There is evidence that students increase their ability to ideate more disruptive solutions based on their interactions with members of organizations. Another practical implication of this review is the recommendation for universities to design experiences in which students transfer their skills to applied environments. Business students may interact with members of firms and public organizations to contribute to defining problems, propose solutions and participate in the design and improvement of products and services.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References 1. Keong, F.O.C.; Willett, R.J.; Yap, K.L. Building a knowledge-based business school. Educ. Train. 2001, 43, 268–274. [CrossRef] 2. Bratianu, C.; Stanescu, D.; Mocanu, R. Exploring the Knowledge Management Impact on Business Education. Sustain. J. Rec. 2021, 13, 2313. [CrossRef] 3. Staples, D.S.; Webster, J. Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Inf. Syst. J. 2008, 18, 617–640. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 16 of 19

4. Castaneda, D.I. Knowledge sharing: The role of psychological variables in leaders and collaborators. Suma Psicológica 2015, 22, 63–69. [CrossRef] 5. Castaneda, D.I. Modelo de Gestión del Conocimiento Basado en Talento Humano; Castaneda, D.I., Ed.; Amazon: Columbia, SC, USA, 2020; ISBN 9584901001/9789584901002. (In Spanish) 6. Muñoz-Pascual, L.; Galende, J.; Curado, C. Human Resource Management Contributions to Knowledge Sharing for a Sustainability-Oriented Performance: A Mixed Methods Approach. Sustainability 2019, 12, 161. [CrossRef] 7. Castaneda, D.I.; Cuellar, S. Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review. Knowl. Process. Manag. 2020, 27, 159–173. [CrossRef] 8. Kong, X.; Xu, Q.; Zhu, T. Dynamic Evolution of Knowledge Sharing Behavior among Enterprises in the Cluster Innovation Network Based on Evolutionary Game Theory. Sustain. J. Rec. 2019, 12, 75. [CrossRef] 9. Hooff, B.V.D.; De Ridder, J.A. Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 2004, 8, 117–130. [CrossRef] 10. Wiewiora, A.; Trigunarsyah, B.; Murphy, G.; Coffey, V. Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 1163–1174. [CrossRef] 11. Helmstädter, E. The Economics of Knowledge Sharing; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2004. 12. Paulin, D.; Suneson, K. Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers—Three blurry terms in KM. Lead. Issues Knowl. Manag. 2011, 2, 73. 13. Chou, C.-H.; Tang, T.-I. Exploring the Distinction between Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Sharing by Bibliometric Method. J. Ind. Intell. Inf. 2014, 2, 179–183. [CrossRef] 14. Evans, J.M.; Hendron, M.G.; Oldroyd, J.B. Withholding the Ace: The Individual and Unit-Level Performance Effects of Self- Reported and Perceived Knowledge Hoarding. Organ. Sci. 2015, 26, 494–510. [CrossRef] 15. Bilgino˘glu,E. Knowledge hoarding: A literature review. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 9, 61–72. [CrossRef] 16. Liao, L.-F. Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: A social power and social exchange theory perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 1881–1895. [CrossRef] 17. Connelly, C.E.; Ford, D.P.; Turel, O.; Gallupe, B.; Zweig, D. ‘I’m busy (and competitive)!’ Antecedents of knowledge sharing under pressure. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pr. 2014, 12, 74–85. [CrossRef] 18. De Garcia, P.S.; Oliveira, M.; Brohman, K. Knowledge sharing, hiding and hoarding: How are they related? Knowl. Manag. Res. Pr. 2020, 1–13. [CrossRef] 19. Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. J. Eng. Educ. 2004, 93, 223–231. [CrossRef] 20. Crowther, D.; Carter, C. Legitimating irrelevance: Management education in higher education institutions. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2002, 16, 268–278. [CrossRef] 21. Bratianu, C.; Hadad, S.; Bejinaru, R. Paradigm Shift in Business Education: A Competence-Based Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1348. [CrossRef] 22. Lin, C.-Y.; Huang, C.-K.; Ko, C.-J. The impact of perceived enjoyment on team effectiveness and individual learning in a blended learning business course: The mediating effect of knowledge sharing. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 36, 126–141. [CrossRef] 23. Pearlstein, J. Team formation that models real life: Teaching students to form better teams in the capstone and beyond. J. Educ. Bus. 2019, 95, 375–383. [CrossRef] 24. Robb, C.C.; Rahn, D.; Buffardi, K. Bridging the gap: A model for interdisciplinary collaboration between entrepreneurship and software engineering students. J. Educ. Bus. 2019, 95, 321–330. [CrossRef] 25. Ekahitanond, V. Promoting University Students’ Critical Thinking Skills through Peer Feedback Activity in an Online Discussion Forum. Alta. J. Educ. Res. 2013, 59, 247–265. 26. Harmon, O.R.; Alpert, W.T.; Histen, J. Online Discussion and Learning Outcomes. Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 2013, 20, 33–44. [CrossRef] 27. DeWitt, D.; Koh, E.H.Y. Promoting knowledge management processes through an interactive virtual wall in a postgraduate business finance course. J. Educ. Bus. 2019, 95, 255–262. [CrossRef] 28. Anson, R.; Goodman, J.A. A Peer Assessment System to Improve Student Team Experiences. J. Educ. Bus. 2013, 89, 27–34. [CrossRef] 29. Ojeaga, I.J.; Igbinedion, V.I. Potentials of E-learning as a Study Tool in Business Education in Nigerian Schools. Int. Educ. Stud. 2012, 5.[CrossRef] 30. Sebastianelli, R.; Tamimi, N. Business Statistics and Management Science Online: Teaching Strategies and Assessment of Student Learning. J. Educ. Bus. 2011, 86, 317–325. [CrossRef] 31. Bayona, J.A.; Castaneda, D.I. Influence of personality and motivation on case method teaching. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2017, 15, 409–428. [CrossRef] 32. Cocieru, O.C.; Katz, M.; McDonald, M.A. A social network comparison between a Classroom-as-Organization and traditional management classes. J. Educ. Bus. 2020, 95, 541–547. [CrossRef] 33. Grzimek, V.; Kinnamon, E.; Marks, M.B. Attitudes about classroom group work: How are they impacted by students’ past experiences and major? J. Educ. Bus. 2020, 95, 439–450. [CrossRef] 34. Bacon, D.R. The Effect of Group Projects on Content-Related Learning. J. Manag. Educ. 2005, 29, 248–267. [CrossRef] 35. Molchanova, O.; Gerasimenko, V. Knowledge sharing in further business education: Russian experience. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM, Padua, Italy, 6–7 September 2018; Volume 1, pp. 579–588. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 17 of 19

36. Beals, D. Vygotsky and Cognitive Science: Language and the Unification of the Social and Computational Mind; Frawley, W., Ed.; Harvard University Pres: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; p. 384. 37. Piaget, J. (Ed.) Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child; Penguin: London, UK, 1977; Available online: https://books. google.com.co/books/about/Science_of_Education_and_the_Psychology.html?id=Q0YsAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y (accessed on 25 January 2021). 38. Stanley, D.; Zhang, Y.J. Collaborative learning in online business education: Evidence from a field experiment. J. Educ. Bus. 2020, 95, 506–512. [CrossRef] 39. Boud, D. Peer Learning in Higher Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. 40. Akhavan, P.; Ebrahim, N.A.; Fetrati, M.A.; Pezeshkan, A. Major trends in knowledge management research: A bibliometric study. Science 2016, 107, 1249–1264. [CrossRef] 41. Kumar, A.; Mohindra, R. Bibliometric Analysis on Knowledge Management Research. Available online: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/280940714_Bibliometric_Analysis_on_Knowledge_Management_Research (accessed on 10 March 2021). 42. Castaneda, D.I.; Manrique, L.F.; Cuellar, S. Is organizational learning being absorbed by knowledge management? A systematic review. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 299–325. [CrossRef] 43. Gaviria-Marin, M.; Merigó, J.M.; Baier-Fuentes, H. Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 140, 194–220. [CrossRef] 44. Ali, N.; Ahmad Malik, B.; Raza, A. Bibliometric Analysis of Literature on knowledge sharing. Ann. Libr. Inf. Stud. 2018, 65, 217–227. 45. Charband, Y.; Navimipour, N.J. Knowledge sharing mechanisms in the education. Kybernetes 2018, 47, 1456–1490. [CrossRef] 46. Al-Kurdi, O.; El-Haddadeh, R.; Eldabi, T. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: A systematic review. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2018, 31, 226–246. [CrossRef] 47. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [CrossRef] 48. Chanchetti, L.F.; Diaz, S.M.O.; Milanez, D.H.; Leiva, D.R.; de Faria, L.I.L.; Ishikawa, T.T. Technological forecasting of hydrogen storage materials using patent indicators. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 18301–18310. [CrossRef] 49. Mogee, M.; Kolar, R. International patent analysis as a tool for corporate technology analysis and planning. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1994, 6, 485–504. [CrossRef] 50. Saavedra, Y.M.B.; Iritani, D.R.; Pavan, A.L.R.; Ometto, A.R. Theoretical contribution of industrial ecology to circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1514–1522. [CrossRef] 51. Betancur, J.A.; Villa-Espinal, J.; Osorio-Gómez, G.; Cuéllar, S.; Suárez, D. Research topics and implementation trends on automotive head-up display systems. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2018, 12, 199–214. [CrossRef] 52. Tursi, V.; Silipo, R. From Words to Wisdom: An Introduction to Text Mining with KNIME; Amazon: Columbia, SC, USA, 2019. 53. Amat, C.B. Network analysis and visualization with Gephi. Redes Rev. Hisp. Análisis Redes Soc. 2014, 25, 201–209. [CrossRef] 54. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [CrossRef] 55. Apriliyanti, I.D.; Alon, I. Bibliometric analysis of absorptive capacity. Int. Bus. Rev. 2017, 26, 896–907. [CrossRef] 56. Starkey, K.; Madan, P. Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research. Br. J. Manag. 2001, 12, S3–S26. [CrossRef] 57. March, J.G. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 71–87. [CrossRef] 58. Nonaka, I. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 14–37. [CrossRef] 59. Argote, L.; Ingram, P. Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2000, 82, 150–169. [CrossRef] 60. Ghoshal, S. Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2005, 4, 75–91. [CrossRef] 61. Granovetter, M.S. The Strength of Weak Ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78, 1360–1380. [CrossRef] 62. Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 128. [CrossRef] 63. Starbuck, W.H. Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. J. Manag. Stud. 1992, 29, 713–740. [CrossRef] 64. Bartunek, J.M.; Rynes, S.L.; Daft, R.L. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 340–355. [CrossRef] 65. Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strat. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 27–43. [CrossRef] 66. Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R.; Konno, N. SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Plan. 2000, 33, 5–34. [CrossRef] 67. Wasko, M.M.; Faraj, S. Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 35. [CrossRef] 68. Bock, G.-W.; Zmud, R.W.; Kim, Y.-G.; Lee, J.-N. Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 87. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 18 of 19

69. Nonaka, I.; Von Krogh, G. Perspective—Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organ. Sci. 2009, 20, 635–652. [CrossRef] 70. Wang, S.; Noe, R.A. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 115–131. [CrossRef] 71. Kanawattanachai, P.; Yoo, Y. The Impact of Knowledge Coordination on Virtual Team Performance over Time. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 783. [CrossRef] 72. Wright, M.; Piva, E.; Mosey, S.; Lockett, A. Academic entrepreneurship and business schools. J. Technol. Transf. 2009, 34, 560–587. [CrossRef] 73. Chen, I.Y.L.; Chen, N.-S. Kinshuk Examining the factors influencing participants’ knowledge sharing behavior in virtual learning communities. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2009, 12, 134–148. 74. Zhou, S.; Siu, F.; Wang, M. Effects of social tie content on knowledge transfer. J. Knowl. Manag. 2010, 14, 449–463. [CrossRef] 75. Harrington, D.; Kearney, A. The business school in transition. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2011, 35, 116–134. [CrossRef] 76. Teng, J.T.; Song, S. An exploratory examination of knowledge sharing behaviors: Solicited and voluntary. J. Knowl. Manag. 2011, 15, 104–117. [CrossRef] 77. Schneckenberg, D. Easy, collaborative and engaging—The use of cloud computing in the design of management classrooms. Educ. Res. 2014, 56, 412–435. [CrossRef] 78. Birkinshaw, J.; Lecuona, R.; Barwise, P. The Relevance Gap in Business School Research: Which Academic Papers Are Cited in Managerial Bridge Journals? Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2016, 15, 686–702. [CrossRef] 79. Marin, A.; Cordier, J.; Hameed, T. Reconciling ambiguity with interaction: Implementing formal knowledge strategies in a knowledge-intensive organization. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016, 20, 959–979. [CrossRef] 80. Tho, N.D. Knowledge transfer from business schools to business organizations: The roles absorptive capacity, learning motivation, acquired knowledge and job autonomy. J. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 21, 1240–1253. [CrossRef] 81. Harmon, J.; Scotti, D.J.; Kessler, E.H. A Multi-Theory Approach to Managing Knowledge Assets: The Case of Complex Professional Human Service Organizations. Organ. Manag. J. 2018, 15, 17–34. [CrossRef] 82. Hernaus, T.; Cerne, M.; Connelly, C.; Vokic, N.P.; Škerlavaj, M. Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: When competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 597–618. [CrossRef] 83. Birkinshaw, J. Why is Knowledge Management So Difficult? Bus. Strat. Rev. 2001, 12, 11–18. [CrossRef] 84. Cheng, E.W. Test of the MBA knowledge and skills transfer. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2000, 11, 837–852. [CrossRef] 85. Wilson, T.D. The nonsense of “knowledge management”. Inf. Res. 2002, 8, 144. 86. Gray, C. Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2006, 12, 345–360. [CrossRef] 87. Bason, C. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-Creating for a Better Society; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2010; ISBN 9781847426352. 88. Hidalgo, A.; Albors, J. Innovation management techniques and tools: A review from theory and practice. R&D Manag. 2008, 38, 113–127. [CrossRef] 89. Doctor, G. Determining the number of simultaneous users of an institutional knowledge repository at a management institute in India. VINE 2008, 38, 334–347. [CrossRef] 90. Doctor, G. Knowledge sharing: Developing the digital repository of SIPS. VINE 2007, 37, 64–73. [CrossRef] 91. Doctor, G. Capturing intellectual capital with an institutional repository at a business school in India. Libr. Hi Tech 2008, 26, 110–125. [CrossRef] 92. Chen, C.; Wu, Y.J.; Wu, W. A sustainable collaborative research dialogue between practitioners and academics. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 566–593. [CrossRef] 93. Bontis, N.; Serenko, A.; Biktimirov, E. MBA knowledge management course: Is there an impact after graduation? Int. J. Knowl. Learn. 2006, 2, 216. [CrossRef] 94. Levin, D.Z.; Kurtzberg, T.R.; Phillips, K.W.; Lount, R.B. The role of affect in knowledge transfer. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pr. 2010, 14, 123–142. [CrossRef] 95. Levin, D.Z.; Walter, J.; Murnighan, J.K. Dormant Ties: The Value of Reconnecting. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 923–939. [CrossRef] 96. Hafstad, S. The knowledge management process in a business school environment. Bus. Inf. Rev. 1997, 14, 135–140. [CrossRef] 97. Birchall, D.; Smith, M. Developing the skills of technologists in strategic decision making—A multi-media case approach. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 1998, 15, 854. [CrossRef] 98. Ruth, S.; Theobald, J.; Frizzell, V. A university-based approach to the diffusion of knowledge management concepts and practice. In Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, New Orleans, LA, USA, 8–10 April 1999; pp. 283–290. 99. Baladi, P. Knowledge and Competence Management: Ericsson Business Consulting. Bus. Strat. Rev. 1999, 10, 20–28. [CrossRef] 100. Albert, S.; Thomas, C. A New Approach to Computer-aided Distance Learning: The ’Automated Tutor’. Open Learn. 2000, 15, 141–150. [CrossRef] 101. Barak, M.; Rafaeli, S. On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as means for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 2004, 61, 84–103. [CrossRef] 102. Tho, N.D.; Trang, N.T.M. Can knowledge be transferred from business schools to business organizations through in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA findings. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1332–1340. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 3657 19 of 19

103. Tippins, M.J. Implementing knowledge management in academia: Teaching the teachers. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2003, 17, 339–345. [CrossRef] 104. Liyanage, S.; Poon, P.S. Technology and innovation management learning in the knowledge economy. J. Manag. Dev. 2003, 22, 579–602. [CrossRef] 105. Redpath, L. Confronting the Bias Against On-Line Learning in Management Education. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2012, 11, 125–140. [CrossRef] 106. Ungureanu, P.; Bertolotti, F. Building and Breaching Boundaries at Once: An Exploration of How Management Academics and Practitioners Perform Boundary Work in Executive Classrooms. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2018, 17, 425–452. [CrossRef] 107. Perry-Smith, J.E.; Shalley, C.E. A Social Composition View of Team Creativity: The Role of Member Nationality-Heterogeneous Ties Outside of the Team. Organ. Sci. 2014, 25, 1434–1452. [CrossRef] 108. Charosky, G.; Leveratto, L.; Hassi, L.; Papageorgiou, K.; Ramos-Castro, J.; Bragos, R. Challenge based education: An approach to innovation through multidisciplinary teams of students using Design Thinking. In Proceedings of the 2018 Technologies Applied to Electronics Teaching Conference (TAEE), La Laguna, Spain, 20–22 June 2018; pp. 1–8. 109. Lee, S.; Lee, S.; Seol, H.; Park, Y. Using patent information for designing new product and technology: Keyword based technology roadmapping. R&D Manag. 2008, 38, 169–188. [CrossRef]