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

© 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue IV Version I 20 ( ) 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 “from the conversation with the [...] academic family” and were indirectly derived from “professional conversations” (Interview 4: 108, 116; own translation). “To Writing to relevant people” can therefore be understood as a strategy that requires specific information and which itself contributes to the accumulation of discipline-specific experiences. This also applies to applications for professorships. 2. “Exam strategies and colloquia” The following example shows how taking part in an appointment procedure for a professorship was used to acquire discipline-specific experiences: “And I thought: ‘Well, it’s quite a good opportunity, and number 5 and I, we went there together and said, ‘So, we’ll just apply here now, let’s see what happens’; we were actually both invited to the audition and then neither of us made it, of course, because it was clear that someone else would get it and it was quite funny to see how it works. I think it was also quite helpful to simply see what kind of questions were asked, for example, in such conversations.” (Interview 12: lines 543-550; own translation) This interview passage shows how the two actors gained knowledge about the procedures of the selection process by applying. It should be noted that the two “applicants” planned and implemented their applications together. Knowledge was strategically collected by collaborating with two peers who took the initiative. Consequently, planning such an operation can also be seen as an “exchange among equals”, which is preceded by the audit strategy. Like the strategy of “writing to relevant persons” mentioned above, the preceding exchange is the prerequisite for implementing further knowledge strategies. However, in this example, supervisors initially played a less important role, as the process was more generally seen as a test. Nevertheless, the role of participation in the appointment process was perceived as a “reference point for their actions” ( Hennig & Kohl, 2011, p. 43; own translation ) since the long-term aim was to obtain a professorship. The motive is, therefore, primarily to gain discipline-specific experience in appointment procedures to be more successful in subsequent applications for professorships. The following section also describes an examination strategy for such practices, in which the relationship with the supervisor was more important: “I gave the presentation in the group for rehearsal, but it wasn’t quite ready then. HOW to apply or, well, I assume that she had looked at the application when I sent it in. I, don't know, but I would think that’s how she answered questions from the commission chairman. But I know that, uhm, at least one other person had applied for the job, which I’m sure was also very strongly considered, where she had a similar relationship to him. So that’s now, I can’t imagine she made a CLEAR statement, so to speak, about how the decision should be made.” (Interview 1: lines 302- 309; own translation) In this case, the supervisor was involved in the rehearsal presentation and gave the applicant tips on “HOW to apply”. A hierarchical relationship is expressed that changes the meaning of the exchange. It is not only important what is practiced, but also who is involved in the exercise and provides advice for the actual exam. Since it was supposed that the supervisor may have an influence on the outcome, the knowledge exchanged was precious. However, the applicant put this effect into perspective by pointing out that another applicant was similarly important to the supervisor. Although the strategy of the rehearsal test fulfilled the goal of gaining exclusive knowledge, the proximity of the other applicant to the supervisor somewhat weakened the advantageous character of this knowledge in the competitive relationship. The difference to the previous strategy is the exchange with a person of higher rank. While the two applicants from the first example gained knowledge from the real procedure, the examination knowledge in the second example developed with a sample lecture and the superior’s hints. The two examination strategies in the examples reflect two different types of knowledge acquisition, which can be distinguished: Collecting (subject-specific) knowledge both through one’s initiative and through exchange with one’s supervisor. 3. “ Test publications” The final strategy we identified was the possibility of “test publications”, which will be illustrated with a passage from Interview 11. “My supervisor back then used to proofread it when I said, ‘Gee, can you look over it again? Does it make sense?’ in the first journal publications. He said, ‘Yes, sure’; took the time, really (laughs) dissected it for me, so meticulously, that I am grateful today, it was good, uhm, and partly [...] So it was more my urge and, uhm, when I had that too, he said, ‘Well, I’ll take a look at it. If you’re already writing it, we’ll get it out reasonably.” (Interview 11: lines 207-223; own translation) The cited passage exemplifies the important role the production of “research papers” (cf. Phelps et al., 2012, p. 1119) plays in collecting subject-specific experience. The interviewee wrote a text, submitted it to the supervisor for proofreading, and through the feedback received, gained knowledge about scientific standards that would be implemented in future papers. Thus, not only are independently written scientific papers relevant in collecting subject-specific knowledge, but above all, the dialogue with experienced scientists. Here, correcting the manuscript was not exclusively author’s interest, but was seen by the supervisor as a process in which the qualitative demand on the paper is expressed. It becomes clear that the supervisor had an interest in the paper becoming “reasonably” submitted and saw it as the joint task to fulfill the scientific quality criteria by using a mutual feedback process. From this, it can be inferred that proofreading manuscripts for publication is to be seen as an exchange in which