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

© 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue IV Version I 11 ( ) 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 Moreover, other aspects of the habitus are reflected in the case of professorships, which are connected to the actors’ positions in the university context. Professorships bring together capital in terms of recognition, financial means, and formal and micropolitical influence on university processes. In this position, professors dispose of means they distribute, thus impacting knowledge production at universities and particularly among their own non-tenured staff ( Hüther & Krücken, 2010, p. 168 ). The diverse forms of capital solidify in the habitus and affect processes at the universities. Professors thereby take a special position within knowledge production, with which the creation of new knowledge can be strategically controlled. For example, professors may use doctoral theses as a monitoring tool applied to maintain the homogeneity of contents and to curb the production of opposing stocks of knowledge ( Bourdieu, 1988, p. 153f .). By sustaining the specific academic habitus, knowledge production thus remains a “cultural production for the purposes of reproduction” ( Bourdieu, 1988, p. 224 ). The manifold strategies applied to implement knowledge practices shown in research originate in actors’ various habitus and scientific settings. In this connection, knowledge practices refer to those that specifically administer knowledge to assert individuals’ own interests. In the following sections, we will present some of the known knowledge strategies to demonstrate how people steer knowledge fluctuation in interactions with peers and the motives that drive such strategic practices. Research has identified information exchange in groups as a cooperative process. However, individual group members’ information in groups is often not exchanged or bundled. Therefore, information exchange can be seen as embedded in a mixed-motive conflictual setting ( cf. Steinel et al., 2010 ). Depending on social motivations, actors decide strategically whether to share their knowledge (to do the good thing) or rather to keep it to themselves and hide it (to do the bad/ugly something) ( cf. Steinel et al., 2010 ). While individuals with prosocial motivations (also referred to as prosocial) make their undivided information available to their groups, thus contributing importantly to group decisions, egotistical motives may lead to deliberately withholding or even concealing and distorting undivided knowledge (also referred to as proselves). Research in knowledge hiding 4 4 Connelly et al. ( 2012, p. 65 ) defined knowledge hiding as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person”. has shown such action to frequently be associated with interpersonal distrust ( Connelly et al., 2012 ). Especially in situations marked by competitive incentives, shared information is mainly bundled in the group. In this connection, bundling pre-shared information c an prove to be functional since other group members thereby confirm the validity of the information. Thus, confidence in the information others provide can be strengthened, and relationships and information exchange be fostered ( Steinel et al., 2010 ). According to Blau’s social exchange theory, positive relationships are based on the norms of reciprocity and expectations regarding trust, honesty, and mutual assistance ( Blau, 1968; cf. Blau, 1964; Buller & Burgoon, 1996) . Individuals who voluntarily and spontaneously engage in positive behavior towards others implicitly elicit similar yet unspecified reciprocal behavior. Exchange expands over time as ongoing obligations are fulfilled, and new obligations are established, thus reinforcing trust between the parties ( Blau, 1964; Blau, 1968 ). “When obligations for benefits received are discharged by providing benefits in return, both parties profit from the association, and their exchange of rewarding experiences fortifies the social bond between them. A man who helps others earns their gratitude and appreciation, and he puts them into his debt, which promises to bring him further rewards in the future” ( Blau, 1968: 453 ). Consequently, sharing knowledge for prosocial motives may encourage others’ prosocial behavior, whereby all those involved in that knowledge exchange profit from new information. At the same time, the reciprocity norm of exchange theory also implies the obligation to reciprocate the benefits gained in exchange. If this social obligation is not fulfilled, others are deprived of the incentive to continue the cordialities (i.e., knowledge sharing; Blau, 1968, p. 452 ). Accordingly, hiding or with holding knowledge in response to prosocial behavior can lead to distrust 5 Moreover, social exchange generates context- specific power inequalities and status boundaries between those concernced. This is b ec ause by giving assistance or a present (i.e., knowledge sharing), a claim is implicitly made to a superordinate status, whereby the addressee is forced to compensate (by using appropriate gratefulness or assistance in return) and “strengthen bonds of indebtedness” ( Blau, 1968, p. 454f. ). “If they return benefits that adequately discharge their obligations, they deny his claim to superiority, and if their returns are excessive, they make a counterclaim to superiority over him. But if they fail to reciprocate with benefits that are as important to him as his are to them, , future pro-self behavior, and subsequently ineffective social exchange ( Connelly et al., 2012, 68; cf. Blau, 1964 ). 5 Distrust is often defined as a “lack of confidence in the other, a concern that the other may act as so to harm one, and that the other does not care about one’s welfare, intends to act harmfully, or is hostile” ( Grovier, 1994, p. 240, quoted by Connelly et al., 2012, p. 68 ). Distrust develops when “an individual or group is perceived as not sharing key cultural values” ( Sitkin & Roth, 1993, p. 371, quoted by Connelly et al., 2012, p. 68 ).