Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 4

© 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue IV Version I 8 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Exploring Motives and Strategies in the Production of Knowledge in the University Context by the Example of Academic Career Trajectories knowledge and agents that search for, transmit and create knowledge – interconnected by social relationships that enable and constrain nodes’ efforts to acquire, transfer and create knowledge” (Phelps et al., 2012, p. 1117). Such knowledge networks constitute the internal knowledge structures in which actors produce knowledge. Knowledge production in such networks depends, in turn, on the network and relationship properties as well as the properties of the individual actors who make up those networks. Before exploring the issue of actors’ motives, strategies, and practices regarding exchange processes in knowledge networks, it is important to build up a basic understanding of the structures and flows of knowledge. a) Knowledge forms Research into the transfer of bodies or stocks of knowledge has frequently made a difference between implicit and explicit knowledge (cf. Kind & Hilber, 2006; Phelps et al., 2012; Brennecke, 2020) . In this regard, tacit knowledge is seen as expert knowledge based on experience, which thus can be explicated to a limited extent (Kind & Hilber, 2006, p. 3) . It is never completely put into words, as expertise – i.e., skills – is closely associated with practice (Kind & Hilber, 2006, p. 3) . In research practice, expert knowledge is defined as a collection of competencies, including the “perception of the situation, cautiousness, ingenuity, insight, and situational judgment” (Combe & Kolbe, 2008, p. 870, quoted by Halder, 2019, p. 53; own translation) . Due to its high degree of specialization, research can be seen as networks, in which, through of implicit knowledge, affirmation, and improvement are possible even though explicit understanding does not cover all contents (Halder, 2019, p. 58) . This also includes the ability to assess what has not yet been realized and how such knowledge could be produced in the future (Halder, 2019, p. 66; Bruns, 2013, p. 73) . Implicit knowledge falls into oblivion when the respective activities are no longer performed. Correspondingly, such knowledge is transmitted in close social bonds. Imitation of superiors (experts) is the purest form of implicit knowledge transfer. Subsequent generations learn how to carry out activities by observing and imitating those activities (Halder, 2019, p. 65) . Apart from imitation (demonstrating and replicating), concrete methods of transmission also include thinking aloud, which makes decisions more comprehensible, and claiming questions that help illustrate practice (Kind & Hilber, 2006, p. 5). Unlike implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge is formalized and easily conceived and communicated. Such knowledge can be completely articulated verbally with more or less complex statements, as it does not relate to abilities or the transmission of skills but rather to superordinate concepts or regulations that can be talked about. Explicit knowledge forms a network of interconnected statements, a “nexus of details” ( Halder, 2019, p. 69; own translation) , which attempts to map knowledge structures. In the course of such mapping, explicit knowledge can be brought into question, discussed, and transmitted. This process facilitates compilation of present knowledge and thus creates new knowledge (Kind & Hilber, 2006, p. 3) . Implicit knowledge is transformed into explicit knowledge in five steps. First, there must be an exchange between actors in which an attempt is made to render knowledge clear. Second, an explicit concept may then emerge from this discourse. Third, this concept is further explained. Fourth, the conception further specifies the implicated ideas as a template for a complete model or a prototype. Finally, after a model has been developed, actors may easily transfer knowledge, as a tangible and explicit stock of knowledge is now available. This phase model refers to the process of concretization, which is typical of the transition from implicit to clear knowledge (Kind & Hilber, 2006, p. 9 ). While implicit knowledge requires more profound relationships and strategies to remain transmissible, codified (explicit) knowledge can be exchanged between actors if wanted. As how clear knowledge spreads in knowledge networks are affected by present structures and practices, we will review current insights in the following. b) Network properties and knowledge production Structural network research, there are various findings on how the network properties affects the creation, transfer, and adaptation of knowledge in interpersonal relationships ( cf. Phelps et al., 2012) . i. Knowledge creation Knowledge creation typically refers to the development of new knowledge in the form of ideas, practices, research work, technical inventions, and products (Phelps et al., 2012, p. 1119) . Various network properties affect individuals’ incentives to generate their knowledge. In an overview, Phelps et al. (2012) summarized several key insights of network research into knowledge creation. For example, the knowledge- based diversity of actors’ direct contacts fosters the generation of new knowledge (Phelps et al., 2012) . Furthermore, social cohesion in networks improves knowledge flows. In particular, strong bonds produce intensive knowledge exchanges. As close relationships strengthen trust and mutuality between network members, a higher level of network density can increase individual knowledge production, especially in individuals with different levels of professional knowledge (cf. Phelps et al., 2012) . At the same time, collaboration experience between people with diverse expertise facilitates the ability to transfer knowledge to others (cf. Phelps et al., 2012) . By contrast, weak ties allow for access to manifold expertise by means of