EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE USE

Another aspect relating to the knowledge transfer aspect of the network is that of knowledge use. As above I look at three types of knowledge use. These were conceptual knowledge use, symbolic knowledge use and instrumental knowledge use. For clarity, conceptual knowledge use is knowledge that is used as ‘general enlightenment’, symbolic knowledge use is knowledge that is used to confirm an approach or position and instrumental knowledge use is knowledge that is put it into practice. For each type of knowledge use I collected data relating to the knowledge use type with regard to how knowledge was received explicitly and tacitly.

To aid understanding of the results below I briefly highlight three aspects that I look at for each type of knowledge use, both within the UoAs and between the UoAs and the CLAHRC organisation. These include:

a) What type of knowledge use was evident and the predominant type of knowledge use when knowledge is delivered explicitly and tacitly

b) Compare the predominant type of knowledge use between when the knowledge is delivered explicitly and tacitly

175

a) At this stage I note that the symbolic use of knowledge was highest in both explicit and tacit knowledge exchange i.e. the knowledge that was received was used to confirm an approach or position. There was, however, more of a mix in the results i.e. across the UoAs at this stage some had other types of knowledge use as the predominant type.

If I look between the UoAs and the CLAHRC organisation, however, I can see that whilst symbolic knowledge use is the highest type across tacit knowledge exchange it is instrumental across explicit knowledge exchange. Again, there is a mix in the results and these are just the most prominent ones. Table 7,21 below outlines the data.

b) There is a mix in terms of which type of exchange (explicit or tacit) demonstrated a higher level of a particular knowledge use within each UoA. It was only with regard to symbolic knowledge use that tacit exchange marginally produced a higher level of use than via tacit knowledge exchange.

Between the UoAs and CLAHRC there was also a mix in term of which type of exchange (explicit or tacit) demonstrated a higher level of a particular knowledge use. It was only with regard to instrumental knowledge use that explicit exchange marginally produced a higher level of use than via tacit knowledge exchange. It is also worth highlighting that there were more UoAs that did not demonstrate any tacit knowledge instrumental use with the CLAHRC organisation at all. These were the project teams Ana, Alcohol and fellows team F1. Table 7.22 below outlines the data.

UoA (%) EK Use TK use

Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Ana 25.00 37.50 37.50 0.00 50.00 50.00 Halc 6.70 53.30 40.00 8.30 25.00 66.70 Stroke 3.80 30.80 65.40 2.60 53.80 43.60 Alcohol 20.00 20.00 60.00 16.70 66.70 16.70 F1 7.60 84.60 7.70 66.00 17.00 17.00 F2 32.90 38.60 28.60 38.10 45.20 16.70 Table 7.21: A table to show the % of different knowledge use types resulting from explicit transfer and tacit sharing within the UoAs

176

UoA EK Use TK use

Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental

C(O) C(O) C(O) C(O) C(O) C(O)

Ana 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 Halc 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 Stroke 0.13 0.13 0.38 0.13 0.00 0.38 Alcohol 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.00 F1 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.44 0.11 0.00 F2 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.17 0.33 0.25

Table 7.22: A table to show the density of different knowledge use types resulting from explicit transfer and tacit sharing between the UoAs and the CLAHRC organisation

As above I look at the vertical differentiation i.e. hierarchy of the network but this time in relation to the type of knowledge use.

There is not a clear outcome at this stage as to what type of knowledge use is more centralised. Symbolic knowledge use comes up as the most centralised in both the case of explicit and tacit knowledge exchange, although this is not clear cut in the data. This is also the case if I compare which of the types of knowledge exchange (EK or TK) demonstrates the highest centrality i.e. there is no clear answer as there is a mix of results in each. Table 7.23 below outlines the data.

(%) EK TK

Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Ana 44.40 66.70 22.20 0.00 66.70 22.20 Halc 16.00 32.00 40.00 16.00 40.00 48.00 Stroke 10.90 45.30 62.50 10.90 42.20 62.50 Alcohol 6.25 56.30 50.00 6.25 37.50 25.00 F1 9.90 84.00 17.30 37.00 88.90 77.00 F2 77.80 29.90 30.60 47.90 45.80 35.40

Table 7.23: A table to show the degree of centrality for each type of knowledge use and each knowledge exchange

As above I also looked at the knowledge use in relation to a set of pre-defined boundaries. This is in relation to both when knowledge is transferred explicitly and tacitly. Again, I looked at pre-defined boundaries of stage of career, job role and where based and I outline the results for each in turn below.

With regard to the career stage partition, for each type of knowledge use – conceptual, symbolic and instrumental - the knowledge received explicitly in general

177

was a mix of heterophilous and homophilous measures and tacitly it was predominantly more homophilous. In both the case of explicit knowledge and Tacit knowledge exchange the knowledge that was most heterophilous in terms of type of use was symbolic as in ‘development’, although again it should be noted there is a mix in the results. In other words the knowledge received by a participant explicitly that was used symbolically came from another participant that was not at the same career stage. Table 7.24 below outlines the data.

If I compare the level of heterophily between types of knowledge use in relation to knowledge that is received explicitly or tacitly I note that there is only a definitive result with regard symbolic knowledge use whereby it is less heterophilous when knowledge is exchanged explicitly. Both conceptual and instrumental knowledge use showed a mixed result i.e. some were equal, more or less. Table 7.24 below outlines the data.

CS EK TK

Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental

Ana 0.00 0.33 0.33 -1.00 0.50 0.33 Halc 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 Stroke -1.00 -0.25 -0.53 -1.00 -0.05 -0.53 Alcohol 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.00 0.50 -0.33 F1 -1.00 0.27 -0.33 -0.14 0.56 -0.11 F2 -0.64 -0.41 -0.47 -0.30 -0.30 -0.62 Table 7.24: A table to show the E-I index measure for each type of knowledge use and each knowledge exchange (Key - CS = Career stage)

Moving on to the job role partition for each type of knowledge use. For both explicitly shared knowledge the most heterophilous is conceptual knowledge use and for tacit it is symbolic. There is, however, a mixture of UoAs demonstrating the other types of knowledge use as being for that network the most heterophilous. In other words this means that in the case of knowledge received explicitly and that was used conceptually more often came from another participant that represented a different job role. Again there is a mix in results, as to which is more or less heterophilous if I compare each type of knowledge exchange. Table 7.25 below outlines the data.

178

JR EK TK

Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental

Ana 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.33 Halc -1.00 0.50 0.00 -1.00 0.50 0.00 Stroke 1.00 -0.25 0.18 1.00 0.05 0.18 Alcohol 1.00 -0.33 0.11 1.00 0.00 -0.31 F1 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.54 0.78 0.33 F2 -0.09 -0.11 0.05 -0.07 -0.35 0.14 Table 7.25: A table to show the E-I index measure for each type of knowledge use and each knowledge exchange (Key - JR = Job role)

Finally, with regard to the where based partition. Here I note conceptual knowledge use as being the most heterophilous in both explicit and tacit knowledge exchange, which is the same as in ‘development’. In other words knowledge that is received explicitly and used conceptually most often came from a participant based elsewhere. Again, if I compare the level of heterophily between types of knowledge use in relation to knowledge that is received explicitly or tacitly it shows that there is a mix between which type of knowledge is more or less heterophilous when comparing explicitly exchanged knowledge and tacitly exchanged knowledge. Table 7.26 below outlines the data.

Based EK TK

Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental Conceptual Symbolic Instrumental

Ana* -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 Halc 1.00 0.25 0.33 1.00 0.00 0.50 Stroke* -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 Alcohol -0.33 -0.33 -0.11 0.00 0.00 -0.33 F1 -1.00 -0.27 -0.33 0.09 -0.11 0.11 F2 0.27 -0.11 -0.58 0.26 0.12 -0.62 Table 7.26: A table to show the E-I index measure for each type of knowledge use and each knowledge exchange (Based) * Located same place so not applicable

2.10 Driving force

2.10.1 Facilitation

The most significant force at this point in the process as before remains that of the organisational broker (CLAHRC), although this has started to reduce. One individual referred to the change as CLAHRC relaxing their input but still receiving requests from time to time:

179

‘So I think CLAHRC have relaxed their approach. They still do the whole, you need to give us sustainability scores every quarter, you still need to give us….’ (86.681)

Summary

The main points at the stage of ‘activity’ include a group that is highly interactive and focused on the activity of the project. The group has established a shared identity and a sense of ownership to the project. The hierarchy in the group has reduced and where there is interaction between boundaries within the UoAs there is cooperation. In less successful groups there was neglect and strain delineated at the boundaries. At this point the UoAs is interacting more with the CLAHRC organisation. There is evidence to suggest differing relations between the UoAs and the CLAHRC organisation including supportive and strained. At this point the group may still have a negative view of the CLAHRC approach but individuals are starting to see the value in them. Explicit knowledge is the predominant exchange with the CLAHRC organisation. CLAHRC are still involved as the driving force but there are signs that this is lessening. Finally, there are varying levels of different types of knowledge use at this point for knowledge received tacitly and explicitly.

There is a distinct possibility that the group remains at this stage as it has become very closed and inward focused. The groups that had moved past this stage had started to spread the project changes to a wider sphere. The CLAHRC representative actively present provided a reminder and direction of the need to spread the project change and this was done to a tight timeframe all of which combined to prevent complete group closure and stagnation as I describe in the next section ‘External Boundary Spanning’.

180