Search

PurposeWhy and when people working in organisations hide their knowledge has received considerable academic attention. However, little attention has been paid to knowledge hiding in academia itself, even though universities are known as places where knowledge is shared. This study aims to consider the dilemma faced by academics when undertaking research work: should they share or hide what they are doing?Design/methodology/approachUsing empirical evidence drawn from 20 academics in a number of UK Business Schools, the authors carried out in-depth interviews to investigate the effects of strategic knowledge hiding (SKH) on research knowledge work. The authors argue that SKH can drive competitive individuals to establish research superiority.FindingsThe findings revealed that most respondents have, for strategic reasons, hidden their tacit and/or explicit knowledge from others during ongoing research processes, but have, at the same time, purposefully sought for knowledge from targeted colleagues.Originality/valueThe findings extend the previous literature by revealing not only the distinctive individual antecedents of SKH but also its positive outcomes. The findings illustrate a pioneering contribution of a systematic model of SKH among university business school academics.

29 Background: Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (AC) is the standard of care for completely resected stage IB (tumor size > 4cm), II, and IIIA non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Several randomized clinical trials have shown varying levels of survival benefit for patients treated with AC compared to surgery alone. Methods: A retrospective study was performed regarding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy comparing Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) patients to those in the TriNetX database in the years 1998-2017. Inclusion criteria were patients > 18 years of age, completely resected (R0), stage IB (tumor size > 4 cm) through stage IIIA (R0) NSCLC. SAS 9.3 was used for data analysis. Results: The populations included two hundred and thirty-six (CAMC) and 4,364 (TriNetX) patients. The CAMC population was 98% Caucasian, 63% male with an average age of 65±10 years. The TriNetX population was 66% Caucasian, 57% male with an average age of 67±10 years. The 5-year overall survival (OS) in the CAMC database between chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy groups was not statistically significant (49.5% vs 49.8%, p = 0.8, respectively). In the TriNetX database, the 5-year OS for the chemotherapy group was significantly higher compared to the non-chemotherapy groups (61.2% vs 54.0%, p < 0.05, respectively). Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the factors influencing 5-year OS in the CAMC population. Results showed that patients >65 years of age were 2.2 times (95% CI: 1.53-3.2) more likely to be dead in 5-years. With each increase in stage patients were 1.3 times (95% CI: 1.0-1.8) more likely to be dead in 5-years. Moreover, patients without coronary artery disease were 1.7 times (95% CI: 1.2-2.4) more likely to be dead in 5-years. Conclusions: Regardless of treatment, about half of CAMC patients were alive at 5 years, while a higher OS was seen in the TriNetX chemotherapy group. Regression analysis of the CAMC population showed that chemotherapy was not a significant variable in 5-year OS. Differences in survival between CAMC and TriNetX could be due to the large number of comorbidities in the CAMC population, patient refusal to chemotherapy, particularly those >65 years, and incomplete planned dose due to side effects of adjuvant chemotherapy. We conclude that several barriers may impact the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in non-trial settings in the CAMC population.