Replying to LO23869 --
On 2 Feb 00, at 6:24, Fred Nickols wrote:
> Let's use two common examples of tacit knowledge: recognizing a face and
> riding a bicycle. I'll agree that we can articulate or describe certain
> features of someone's face and we can describe what it's like to ride a
> bicycle. However, that knowledge is typically inadequate in terms of
> transferring our capability to someone else. What we've captured in our
> descriptions is that which can be articulated. That which can't be
> articulated is, by definition, tacit knowledge. So, I don't agree with
> you when you say "it would be incorrect to say that tacit knowledge can't
> be made explicit." Why? Because of the very statement by Polanyi that
> Nonaka quoted.
This is all very interesting, although it's again wandering around in the
desert looking to the dessert in all the wrong places. Apply THE test. If
I can teach someone to recognize a face or ride a bicycle, using ONLY
words, then I have succeeded in transfering my tacit knowledge to another.
The only way I could possibly do that with the face is to describe the
features, etc.
I CAN teach you to pick me out of a crowd, using symbolic instruction. I
may not be able to do that completely with the bicycle (but perhaps it's
possible).
You can cycle round and round with definitions and concepts (which I
really like), but it's all just fun stuff with not a lot of meaning. Try
applying real world tests to definitions and ideas and see what happens.
No what I can't seem to teach people is how to take concepts, and make
them come alive by nailing them the direct real world.
...sigh.
Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.