Exploring barriers in expertise seeking : why don't they ask an expert?

This paper reports findings from a research project that explores reasons why some employees prefer to seek expertise to resolve work-related problems from direct colleagues rather than designated internal experts. Several studies suggest that while an expert generally provides a higher quality solution in a shorter time, workers tend to ask friendly or proximate colleagues to help with knowledge-based problems at work. Prior research provides only fragmented insights into understanding the barriers to asking a designated internal expert for help at work. To address this gap, we asked post-graduate students enrolled in a knowledge management subject at a large Australian university to share their perspectives in an online discussion forum. Content analysis of the collected perspectives enabled identification of twenty-one factors that may limit the seeking of expertise from a designated internal expert. The factors are grouped in four categories: environment, accessibility, communication and personality. In addition one context variable is described, determining the extent to which the barriers are influential in a specific situation. By synthesising the results, we have proposed two models of expertise-seeking barriers. A literature review helps validate the barriers identified by the study. Key theoretical and practical implications are also discussed.

What themes trigger investigative interviewers to ask specific questions when interviewing children?

Recent research has established that investigative interviewers have difficulty adhering to openended questions and instead ask specific questions when interviewing children about abuse. The current study aims to examine the themes in abuse-related interviews that trigger investigators to ask specific questions. Twenty police officers who were authorised to conduct investigative interviews with children completed a mock interview with an expert in child abuse interviewing who had been trained to play the role of an abused child. During the interview, the officers were stopped by a researcher and asked to reflect on why they had asked specific questions. Overall, the results revealed five areas where the officers deviated from open-ended questions. These related to: (1) the identity of the alleged offender; (2) the meaning of terms used by the child to describe genitals; (3) whether or not penetration occurred; (4) the offender's intent and motives; and (5) the timing of the abuse and where it occurred. Each of these themes is discussed, along with the implications for trainers and researchers in child abuse interviewing.

You won’t know if you don’t ask discrepancy and ambivalence in attitudes toward behavior change

Background: Behavior change is challenging following an acute cardiac event, and commonly, individuals are ambivalent. Aim: The objective of this study was to describe the experience of behavior change of survivors of an acute cardiac event. Method: Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 25 participants attending 3 cardiac rehabilitation programs. An inductive process of qualitative thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts. Results: Analysis revealed ambivalence to change, misconceptions, and confusion about terminology. Discrepancies between what participants felt they should be doing and what they actually were doing reflected their ambivalence. Further inconsistencies were reflected in participants' misunderstandings and confusion regarding disease processes and management of heart disease. Conclusions: These findings reflect the misconception and ambivalence regarding behavior change that individuals experience. Clinicians may require greater skills in detecting conflicting or ambivalent discourse to support patients through sustainable health behavior change.

New empirical evidence on the bid-ask spread

In this article, we model the determinants of spread for 734 firms listed on the NYSE over the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2008. We propose a panel data model of the determinants of spread. There are four main messages emerging from our work. We find a statistically significant effect of volume on spread inconsistent with the work of Johnson (2008). On price, we find mixed results, consistent with the literature. On the effect of price volatility on spread, our results are completely the opposite of the cross-sectional literature but sides with the relatively recent work of Chordia et al. (2001). We allow for persistence of spread as a determinant of spread and find significant evidence of spread persistence across all 16 sectors. Finally, we examine size effects and find statistically strong evidence of size effects based on the relationship between price and spread, persistence and spread, and volatility and spread.