Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Brigita Janiunaite et al.
by <strong>the</strong> correlation <strong>of</strong> features corresponds to <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretic groups and dimensions, a factor
analysis was carried out. Factorization <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> diagnostic part <strong>of</strong> this questionnaire was
employed to group significant statements. Correlations among statements in a single factor were
also examined, considering <strong>the</strong> internal relationships between statements. The factor analysis
considered only <strong>the</strong> statements with factor loadings L≥ 0,4.
To evaluate <strong>the</strong> processes <strong>of</strong> organizational learning in organizations <strong>of</strong> different types, it was
important to find out <strong>the</strong> coherence <strong>of</strong> responses to <strong>the</strong> statements. Mean values <strong>of</strong> responses
and standard deviation (SD) were considered to evaluate <strong>the</strong> data variance.
Single-factor analysis was fur<strong>the</strong>r carried out to reveal <strong>the</strong> statistically significant differences in <strong>the</strong>
processes <strong>of</strong> organizational learning between organizations <strong>of</strong> different types.
The values <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> factors were summarized by descriptive statistics.
5. Results and discussion
The factor analysis on <strong>the</strong> diagnostic block <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questionnaire has come up with 8 <strong>the</strong>oretically
significant factors for a meaningful interpretation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> information (KMO = 0,753). Eight factors have
explained 77 per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variance.
The first factor has involved a meaningful set <strong>of</strong> statements that reflect <strong>the</strong> dimension <strong>of</strong> knowledge
creation and dissemination in organizations.
The items in this factor have high factor loadings and correlation: from 0,925 to 0,718 (only one
statement was L = 0,512). The Mean values in different items were from 1, 5 to 3, standard deviation
from 0, 8 to 1, and 83. The quite high value <strong>of</strong> SD is easy to explain, as <strong>the</strong> single-factor analysis has
shown a statistically significant variance between <strong>the</strong> items in this factor in different types <strong>of</strong>
organizations.
Considering <strong>the</strong> statistically significant difference among different types <strong>of</strong> organizations, it was noted
that only one item in this block (‘Some members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization take part in councils for <strong>the</strong>
defence <strong>of</strong> doctoral dissertations’) was given coherent responses. This item also has <strong>the</strong> weakest
correlation with o<strong>the</strong>r items in this factor. This result has a logical explanation: only those researchers
who have relevant qualifications can take part in councils for <strong>the</strong> defence <strong>of</strong> doctoral dissertations.
There is a statistically significant difference in <strong>the</strong> opinions in different types <strong>of</strong> organizations (F = from
8,616 to 13,215; p=0,001).
The statements were strongly supported by <strong>the</strong> respondents from non-governmental non-pr<strong>of</strong>it
organizations. This shows that employees in this type <strong>of</strong> organizations are actively involved in
knowledge creation and dissemination (Mean from 4, 5 to 5; SD from 0 to 0, 54). The responses from
o<strong>the</strong>r organizations show that <strong>the</strong> employees <strong>of</strong> business organizations are <strong>the</strong> least involved in
knowledge creation and dissemination, somewhat more involved in knowledge creation and
dissemination are <strong>the</strong> employees in <strong>the</strong> public sector (Mean from 2,6 to 4; SD from 0,53 to 1,76). The
most coherent responses were given with reference to <strong>the</strong> statement that ‘Members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
organization give presentations at different conferences’ (SD from 0 to 0, 54).
But <strong>the</strong>re was variance <strong>of</strong> opinion in business organizations (SD = 1,5). It should be noted that o<strong>the</strong>r
results <strong>of</strong> research on cooperation between universities and business organizations (Janiunaite,
2009) show that <strong>the</strong> most sophisticated knowledge interaction, such as learning from <strong>the</strong> market and
o<strong>the</strong>r system actors, is not being developed. There is a donor-recipient relationship prevailing in <strong>the</strong>
system, where Lithuanian businesses are little involved in creating new technologies.
The second factor reflected <strong>the</strong> forms <strong>of</strong> learning in organizations.
The items in this factor are different in <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> correlation. The first and <strong>the</strong> last three items have
low correlation. Thus one may assume that <strong>the</strong> managers’ encouragement to learn and <strong>the</strong>ir support
have a direct influence on <strong>the</strong> organizational learning and qualification development. But this kind <strong>of</strong>
encouragement is not related to a better understanding <strong>of</strong> one’s own activity, analysis <strong>of</strong> success and
failure, implementation <strong>of</strong> strategic innovations.
The mean value <strong>of</strong> responses to <strong>the</strong> statements in this factor is from 2,8 to 4, whereas <strong>the</strong> standard
deviation in different statements is from 0,8 to 1, and 37. This shows that different statements were
256