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

© 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue IV Version I 12 ( ) 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 they validate his claim to superior status” ( Blau, 1968, p. 455 ). Thus, information sharing can serve the purpose of being able to claim future support or information by using of a superordinate role and thereby secure advantages (pro-self). Knowledge hiding can manifest itself in various ways: While knowledge hoarding refers to accumulating knowledge to be shared or not later, knowledge hiding describes the deliberate concealment of knowledge requested by others ( cf. Connelly et al., 2012, p. 66 ). Thus, knowledge hiding is not simply seen as the simple absence of sharing but rather as a conscious attempt to withhold and conceal knowledge. While knowledge hiding may be subject to various motives (e.g., prosocial, instrumental, idleness, or egoism), deficient knowledge exchange is probably to be ascribed to insufficient knowledge itself ( Connelly et al., 2012, p. 67) . Connelly et al. (2012) identified three strategies applied to hide knowledge among the staff of a company: 1. Playing dumb: staff feigned “dumbness” and ignorance upon being requested to provide a specific piece of information; 2. Evasive hiding: team passed on false information or made delusive promises to deliver complete answers in the future, although this was never their intention; and 3. Rationalized hiding: staff offered reasons for failing to supply the requested knowledge as it could not be provided (e.g., confidential information to be held under lock and key) or by blaming others. Individuals’ positions within a knowledge network may also encourage the strategic withholding of knowledge. Cohen and Levinthal (1990, p. 132) suggested that, in the case of differences between external expertise and expertise within an organization, individual members of the group are likely to adopt a gatekeeping role, comprehensibly transmit crucial information to the internal staff, and monitor the external environment for helpful information. In such positions, these individuals or nodes in the network can consciously and strategically transmit or withhold information to pursue their interests. However, as the central position may lead to actors’ information transmission being overloaded, passing on and withholding information need not always be strategically intended ( Schilling & Fang, 2014, p. 10 ). Another strategy of knowledge acquisition develops in providing assistance with work-related problems. According to Shah, repeatedly giving assistance, e.g., in problem-solving, increases the helping actors’ levels of performance ( Shah et al., 2018, p. 427 ). For this reason, it may prove useful to consider assistance in knowledge networks not only as a disadvantage but also as a chance to enhance one’s stock of knowledge. Moreover, actors may profit from becoming involved with “difficult” actors in networks and requesting assistance, as they thus gain access to exclusive understanding and advantages (Brennecke, 2020, p. 36). In both cases, networks can be instrumentally utilized to achieve targeted learning or obtain exclusive information. Actors apply various strategies in knowledge production, whether passing on or appropriating knowledge. They hide and transfer information, and they impede or actively steer the flow of knowledge according to their interests. Such practices are closely associated with the given habitus of the knowledge producers and their networks. This is because the framework and scope of action governing which practices may come into question in the first place develops in this context. Therefore, knowledge production does not consist merely in receiving and passing on new or known knowledge between actors. Rather, it reflects a process guided by habitus, which yields various strategies, practices, and motives in generating, adapting, and transferring knowledge. III. I nterviews: S cience and K nowledge N etworks Based on qualitative interviews, various motives, strategies, and practices applied in knowledge creation among scientists in the natural and social sciences while taking the habitus into account were worked out. To this end, we re-analyzed eight interviews based on a study on the influence of social relationships on professors’ career trajectories in 2015/16 6 Initially inspecting the interviews, the working definitions served as a guide to identify relevant text passages, and each interview was individually considered. The text passages identified were documented according to knowledge type and with a reference to strategies and, or motives, as well as a brief (Hennig & Federmann, 2018). The participants in this problem- centered interview were four women and four men, each holding professorships at various German universities, who reflected on their careers and the actors involved in those trajectories. The transcribed interviews were analyzed in three steps. First, working definitions that captured the features of motives and strategies were generated from the theoretical considerations. As research had shown motives and strategies to be difficult to d istinguish, theoretical reasons and theoretical strategies were connected in the working definitions. 6 The survey included people who influenced on career development. For this purpose, the interviewees were given an empty numbered list, and whenever they thought of certain people during a career phase, they were asked to write them down on the list in front of them. Furthermore, when the interviewees noted down a person, they were asked to tell why this person was important to them and what role they had played in the career phase addressed. To do this, they were always asked to state the (newly) noted number aloud so that the persons named in the interviews could later be linked to the questionnaire via the numbers to the quoted statements. A detailed description of the data collection can be found in Hennig & Federmann (2018).