arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Navigating Knowledge Boundaries: The Role of Academic Self-Conception in Open Innovation Practices

Adin Gustina et al.

Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management2025https://doi.org/10.34190/ejkm.23.1.3768article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

This study investigates the role of academic self-conception in knowledge-hiding behaviours and their impact on open innovation within academic contexts. Drawing on Social Exchange Theory, we examine how individuals' perceptions of their academic abilities influence their tendencies to engage in various forms of knowledge hiding, including evasive hiding, rationalised hiding, and playing dumb. This research was a quantitative study conducted among 262 Indonesian academicians. The data was collected through an online survey and tested using SEM-PLS. Our findings reveal that academic self-conception positively influences all three types of knowledge-hiding behaviours. Interestingly, while evasive hiding does not significantly impact open innovation, rationalised hiding negatively affects open innovation outcomes, whereas playing dumb positively influences open innovation. These results underscore the importance of understanding individual-level factors, such as academic self-conception, in shaping knowledge-hiding behaviours and their implications for innovation processes within academic settings.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.34190/ejkm.23.1.3768

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{adin2025,
  title        = {{Navigating Knowledge Boundaries: The Role of Academic Self-Conception in Open Innovation Practices}},
  author       = {Adin Gustina et al.},
  journal      = {Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.34190/ejkm.23.1.3768},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Navigating Knowledge Boundaries: The Role of Academic Self-Conception in Open Innovation Practices

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.