2009년 1월 13일 화요일

Tacit knowledge

자료: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge


※ Some underlines, bold letters, and colorings were added by this reader just for study. To see the original text, please refer to the source link above.

The concept of tacit knowing comes from scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi. It is important to understand that he wrote about a process (hence tacit knowing) and not a form of knowledge. However, his phrase has been taken up to name a form of knowledge that is apparently wholly or partly inexplicable.

Contents

 [hide]

[edit]Definition

With tacit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge they possess or how it can be valuable to others. Tacit knowledge is considered more valuable because it provides context for people, places, ideas, and experiences. Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust.

Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. One of Polanyi's famous aphorisms is: "We know more than we can tell." Tacit knowledge consists often of habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves. In the field of knowledge management the concept of tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge which is only known by an individual and that is difficult to communicate to the rest of an organization. Knowledge that is easy to communicate is called explicit knowledge. The process of transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is known as codification or articulation.


(Knowledge Management: 생략)


Controversies

With some regularity there are critical voices arguing that an understanding as formulated above(i.e., as in knowledgement... added by this reader) is a mainstream but faulty interpretation of Michael Polanyi's work.[1] Tacit and explicit should not be understood as characteristics of knowledge, which is missing the point that Polanyi was trying to make largely. Polanyi's point was that knowing always had an indispensable personal component. With this he was critiquing an objectivist position of which he was deeply worried for its lack of ethical commitment or considerations. 

  • Building on the general ideas from Gestalt-psychology he described a difference between two kinds of awareness: subsidiary and focal awareness.

    (1) In our focal awareness we are aware of a coherent whole, a Gestalt.
    (2) In our subsidiary awareness we implicitly are conscious of the different impressions, memories that build this Gestalt. This Gestalt is not given, but it is an achievement, realized by interpretative skills.
  • The whole notion of explicit knowledge as something that could be captured in an information system is at odds with this interplay between subsidiary and focal awareness, just as the mainstream definition of tacit knowledge as something unknowable or belonging to the subconscious. 
  • The tacit can be known but only in terms of the Gestalt that it bears on. The explicit is gone in the next moment, when a new Gestalt is formed in the focal awareness
Polanyi described this interplay between subsidiary and focal awareness as indwelling

  • We indwell our interpretative frameworks so that we order and select our impressions. 
  • We indwell our integrative skills so that we focus on what we want to achieve and our bodily skills implement what is needed. The focus is a Gestalt that is produced from the subsidiary particles, just as it is something that summons bodily skills.

The implications of this paradigm of indwelling (Sanders, 1998), have hardly been touched upon. Brohm (2005) explains this process of indwelling in terms of a stage metaphor. 

  • On the stage there is a focus in the play, an event in the theatre play (i.e. focal awareness), pointed at by the spotlight. 
  • Around the light circle on the stage there are actors, attributes (i.e. impressions). 
  • It is the director that has arranged the parts in such a way that the whole emerged from its parts (i.e. integrative skills).

Image:knowingtheatre.jpg

The main benefit of this stage metaphor is that it counters the popular metaphor of the iceberg (the subconscious/tacit under water, the explicit above water). The metaphor shows the dynamics and interdependence between explicit and tacit knowledge.

The implications of such a reading of Polanyi are manifold. 

  • Firstly, true discovery comes from an intention to be submerged in the phenomena under study, thereby emphasizing participatory observations as a method
  • Secondly, there is no knowledge transfer, but it is possible to indwell the actions from a master in order to gradually reconstruct skills. 
  • Thirdly, knowledge and ethics are inherently connected. There is no neutral knowledge. Any claim to knowledge reflects a particular standpoint, interpretative framework etc., as there is no explicit knowledge that is simply given. 
  • Fourthly, since we all have a personal history, a particular education and socialization there can be quite different perspectives. But the problems in organizations or societies can be so complex that different perspectives are relevant. In such a case organizing should be an emergent process to allow for differences and even make use of that. Such a constellation Polanyi named polycentric order.

[edit]See also

[edit]References

  1. ^ See Brohm, 1999; Tsoukas, 2003; Patriotta, 2004
  • Polanyi, Michael. "The Tacit Dimension". First published Doubleday & Co, 1966. Reprinted Peter Smith, Gloucester, Mass, 1983. Chapter 1: "Tacit Knowing".
  • Bao, Y.; Zhao, S. (2004), "MICRO Contracting for Tacit Knowledge - A Study of Contractual Arrangements in International Technology Transfer", in Problems and Perspectives of Management, 2, 279- 303.
  • Brohm, R. Bringing Polanyi onto the theatre stage: a study on Polanyi applied to Knowledge Management, in: Proceedings of the ISMICK Conference, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1999, pp. 57-69.
  • Brohm, R. "Polycentric Order in Organizations", published dissertation by ERIM, Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, 2005.http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6911
  • Collins, H.M. "Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire" Social Studies of Science' p. 71-85 31(1) 2001
  • Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge Creating Company Oxford University Press, 1995
  • Patriotta, G. (2004). Studying organizational knowledge. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 2(1).
  • Sanders, A. F. (1988). Michael Polanyi's post critical epistemology, a reconstruction of some aspects of 'tacit knowing'. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Tsoukas, H. (2003) ‘Do we really understand tacit knowledge?’ in The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Easterby-Smith and Lyles (eds), 411-427. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing .
  • Dalkir, Kimiz (2005) "Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice" pp. 82-90

[edit]External links

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기