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

© 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue IV Version I 21 ( ) 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 scientific standards are to be met and learned by those being evaluated. The interview excerpts provided in this section revealed various strategies for collecting subject-specific experience. A prerequisite for this process, however, is active participation in the respective scientific field. For example, writing cover letters and resulting experiences about application and funding practices require knowledge concerning relevant people or names (explicit field knowledge). In addition, strategies in gaining field-specific experience may be related in their effectiveness to one’s relationship with other actors. In the relationship with superiors, tacit knowledge is exchanged through trial presentations and feedback on scientific papers, which can be particularly benefit to actors for the reasons mentioned above. However, knowledge sharing does not only take place with superiors, but also in work practice and knowledge strategy planning with equals who share similar interests. V. C onclusion The aim of this article was to explore when and how both strategic motives and internal knowledge structures influence the creation and transfer of knowledge in the university context. The analysis shows that motives are closely related to actors’ strategies. The examples underline that knowledge production is closely linked to the field in which this knowledge is relevant. In this context, the strategy for implementing a motive depend on the structure and framework of that field. It became clear that in a hierarchical system such as the university, it is important to know the field-specific rules to participate in the game for positions, power, and resources (cf. Bourdieu, 1992). In this context, the strategies essentially serve to reproduce the system. Furthermore, it became apparent that unknowing participants – in our case, junior scientists – fall subject to the illusion that the university field is only about field interests. However, while acquiring knowledge about field rules, the subjects become quickly aware that struggles for power and position also play a role in determining scientific careers in academia (see also Barlösisus, 2011, p. 100ff.). Progressing through different educational institutions and facilities affects the habitus and leads to adaptations necessary to complete multiple career stages successfully. This, in turn, means that the various changes between universities and institutions alter patterns of perception, evaluation, and thinking, in addition to the forms of practice through the respective field-specific experiences, as the examples show. Thus, in “observation/imitation” forms of practice or ideas are evaluated and adapted in accordance with one’s own habitus without fundamentally changing them. In collecting field-specific knowledge, the habitus plays an implicit but important role as a “structuring” and “structured structure” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 52). The habitus is structured by the collecting experience in the field, while the practices underlying these experiences in turn, have an impact on subsequent motives and strategies. In the field of science, motives are primarily derived from the goal of gaining the best possible position, power, and resources in the field. For this purpose, it is necessary to obtain implicit knowledge about the rules of the game in the field, but also to minimize competition, acquire advice and support, and gain field-specific experience. These motives are implemented strategically, but how and in what way this is done is usually not a rational decision but rather depends on the actors’ habitus. Thus, permanent competition can promote pro-self strategies to successfully achieve one’s goals even if a prosocial strategy would be more rational since resources are combined here and one could reach the goal faster together. Prosocial strategies are also found in the scientific domain due to prevailing gender inequality. This leads to women developing common strategies and pooling resources to improve their positions in the struggle to assert themselves in such a male-dominated field. Even though we are still at a relatively early stage of research, the potential of using in-depth qualitative interviews to trace actors’ motives and strategies in the creation, transfer, and adaption of tacit knowledge in social relations is evident, as this not only captures the relationships between actors in the context of knowledge production but also serves to consider the structures and their effects. Finally, we must point out some limitations of our study. First, we re-analyzed data that were collected retrospectively with a different objective. And second, the results of the eight interviews cannot be generalized. They give us only exemplary indications of motives and strategies about different forms of knowledge production. Therefore, in the Future, research will need to identify on a larger scale the difference between motives and strategies in the knowledge production process in an attempt to develop a typology of which motives lead to which strategies in creating, transferring, and adapting tacit knowledge. Perhaps it would be possible to identify the necessary potential for improvement to eliminate the glass ceiling effects in science that make it difficult for women to move up the career path. B ibliography 1. Asbrand, Barbara (2011). Dokumentarische Methode. In: http://www.fallarchiv.uni-kassel.de/ba ckup/wp-content/plugins.old/lbg_chameleon_video