Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor in Business Administration
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Bath DOCTOR OF BUSINESS (DBA) Tacit knowledge sharing at Higher Education Institutions and its impact on the creation of competitive niches. Holzer Geromin, Martina Award date: 2015 Awarding institution: University of Bath Link to publication Alternative formats If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact: [email protected] General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 10. Oct. 2021 Tacit knowledge sharing at Higher Education Institutions and its impact on the creation of new competitive niches Martina Holzer Geromin A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor in Business Administration in Higher Education Management (DBAHEM) University of Bath School of Management April 2015 COPYRIGHT Attention is drawn to the fact that copyright of this thesis rests with the author. A copy of this thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that they must not copy it or use material from it except as permitted by law or with the consent of the author. 1 Contents Acknowledgements 7 1. Introduction 9 1.1 Why is this reflection on knowledge relevant for this study on ‘Tacit knowledge sharing at HEIs and its impact on the creation of competitive niches? 9 1.2 What did I want to study? 10 1.3 What theoretical framework is the study based upon? 11 1.4 The structure of the thesis 13 2. Literature Review: Knowledge - the core element of higher education institutions 16 2.1 Knowledge - What is it? 17 2.1.a) A positivistic/cognitive definition of knowledge 18 2.1.b) A constructivist view of knowledge 19 2.2 Determining variables shaping knowledge 24 2.2.a) The essence of all knowledge: absolute knowledge 24 2.2.b) The individual components shaping knowledge 27 2.2.c) The collective components shaping knowledge 30 2.2.d) The tacit dimension of knowledge 32 2.3 Nonaka & Takeuchi’s theoretical framework on knowledge creating companies 35 2.4 Can Nonaka & Takeuchi’s model be transferred to HEIs? 38 2.5 What can HEIs learn from Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theoretical framework in order to enhance tacit knowledge sharing practices? 39 2.6 The concept of ‘ba’ which facilitates tacit knowledge sharing with the aim of creating new competitive niches at HEIs 43 2.6.1 Where does the concept of ‘ba’ come from? 44 2.6.2. In which elements is ‘ba’ grounded? 45 3. Research Questions 50 3.1 The study’s sub-research questions 51 2 4. The Research Context 53 4.1 The Higher Education Context 53 4.1.a) The purpose of Higher Education Institutions 55 4.1.b) The creation of competitive niches 56 4.2 The concrete study of research: The Free University of Bozen/Bolzano 57 4.2.a) Historical Background 58 4.2.b) Legal and economic considerations 60 4.2.b)i The trilingualism 62 4.2.b)ii Interculturalism 63 4.2.c) Institutional considerations with a special focus on knowledge-sharing aspects 65 4.2.d) Organizational considerations 72 4.2.e) Departmental aspects 77 4.2.e)i The Faculty of Education 77 4.2.e)ii The Faculty of Economics and Management 78 4.2.e)iii The Faculty of Design and Art 80 4.2.e)ivThe Faculty of Computer Sciences 81 4.2.e)v The Faculty of Sciences and Technology 82 4.2.f) Conclusive considerations 83 5. Research Design and Methods 84 5.1 Philosophical considerations 85 5.2 Ethical considerations 87 5.3 Reflections on my role as a qualitative researcher 90 5.4 The empirical study 93 5.4.a) Research questions, sub-research questions and leading interview questions 93 5.4.b) Case study organization 95 5.4.c) Research participants 97 5.4.d) Research methods 101 5.4.e) Data analysis 104 5.5 Conclusion 106 3 6. Findings and Discussion 107 6.1 What does tacit knowledge sharing mean in this organizational context? 109 6.1.1 Definition of tacit knowledge sharing of co-workers 109 6.1.1.a) Tacit knowledge sharing is constructed 110 6.1.1.b) Tacit knowledge is unlimited 111 6.1.1.c) Tacit knowledge sharing is personal 112 6.1.1.d) Tacit knowledge sharing is culturally embedded 113 6.1.1.e) Tacit knowledge sharing is fluid 114 6.1.2. The perceived value of tacit knowledge sharing at the institution 116 6.1.2.a) Knowledge sharing is empowering 116 6.1.2.b) Knowledge sharing raises awareness 117 6.1.2.c) Knowledge sharing encourages consensus-building 117 6.1.3 The institutional culture with regards to tacit knowledge- sharing practices (ba) 119 6.1.3.a) Lack of shared institutional culture 119 6.1.3.b) Communication constraints 120 6.1.3.c) The institutional vision requires more clarity 122 6.1.3.d) Unclarity about the institution’s status 123 6.2 What are the barriers and enablers of tacit knowledge sharing? 124 6.2.1 Barriers 125 6.2.1.a) The ‘they-we’ perception 125 6.2.1.b) Unclear commonly shared vision and objectives 128 6.2.1.c) A lack of commonly shared institutional culture (ba) 130 6.2.1.d) The physical separation between the central administration and the faculty administration and academia 131 6.2.1.e) The rigid bureaucratic pillar 132 6.2.1.f) Time constraints 134 6.2.1.g) Internal competition 135 6.2.1.h) Communication constraints 136 6.2.2 Enablers 137 6.2.2.a) Acknowledgement of the value of the tacit dimension 137 6.2.2.b) A clear vision with commonly shared objectives 138 6.2.2.c) A shared institutional culture 139 6.2.2.d) An organizational structure based on cross-role, cross- 4 departmental and trans-disciplinary collaboration 142 6.2.2.di) The creation of interdisciplinary Communities of Practice 143 6.2.2.e) The creation of time 145 6.2.2.f) The decentralization and decrease of bureaucracy 146 6.2.2.g) The size 146 6.3 What are the characteristics of the environment by which competitive niches are created? 147 6.3.a) A culture of care 150 6.3.b) A clear institutional vision 152 6.3.c) The celebration of the social nature of the organization 153 6.3.d) A culture of trust and openness 154 6.3.e) A culture that nurtures innovation and entrepreneurship 156 6.3.f) A culture based on intellectual excellence 157 6.3.g) An emphasis on infrastructure, size and resources 158 6.3.h) A culture which gives space to knowledge-activists 159 7. Contributions and Recommendations 161 7.1 Theoretical contributions 161 7.1.a) A holistic knowledge concept 161 7.1.b) The value of human capital as unique source for competitive advantage 162 7.1.c) The SECI model redesigned 163 7.1.d) The socialization quadrant in the HE context 166 7.2 Recommendations 168 7.2.a) Some practical suggestions for the Free University of Bolzano-Bozen 168 7.2.b) Possible implementation challenges at FUB 170 7.3 How can a knowledge-enabling ‘ba’ as outlined in chapter 6.3 be made possible? 172 8. Conclusion 174 8.1 The purpose of HEIs 175 8.2 The importance of human capital 176 8.3 The importance of tacit knowledge sharing 176 8.4 The creation of competitive niches 177 5 8.5 Suggestions for further research 178 8.6 Final remarks 179 Bibliography 180 Appendix I (Findings - original language) 193 Appendix II (Statute of the Free University of Bozen/Bolzano) 201 Appendix III (Three Years’ Plan of FUB 2014-2016) 236 6 Acknowledgements In my view, every single human being has an innate desire to know more. As such I have always been driven by the thirst to dig deeper, to ask questions, to find out about the world I live in, to go beyond the so called surface, to try out, to risk and to keep an open mind. Knowledge creation is based on learning - lifelong learning - because knowledge gets constructed gradually. I am grateful for this process. First and foremost, I am grateful to my father who always had the dictionary ready to find out more about any questions arising during my studies. His way of looking at the universe, of telling me personal stories, such as how he was able to overcome his homesickness during the Second World War by reading the sky at night time, have made me understand that there is infinite knowledge out there and that it makes sense to keep an open mind because, by doing so, a confusing chaos may result in the outcome of a clear picture, eventually. I am grateful to Prof.