Replying to LO23873 --
I originally wrote:
> >In the context of the article, Nonaka was referring to EXPLICIT
> >knowledge creation. On page 97, he gives an example of
> >creation of new knowledge: "A brilliant researcher has an
> >insight that leads to a new patent." The insight is an example
> >of the creation of tacit knowledge.
>[Host's Note:
>...creation of explicit knowledge?? It must be explicit because
>it's documented in the patent. Or, Patrick, do you mean the
>knowlege of how to come up with new insights, which is
>probably tacit? ..Rick]
I meant that when the insight occurred, is when new knowledge was created
(at least in that researcher's mind).
AT writes:
[I've snipped the discussion about Faraday's constant - it's very
relevant, but I suspect some would have found it somewhat lengthy -
Patrick. We then get to the conclusion .....]
> What we can we learn from this? Every byte of tacit knowledge which we do
> succeed in articulating, happens by way of an emergence -- a quantum jump
> in our internal self-organisation. Whenever we become aware that there are
> a number of related bytes of tacit knowledge which we fail persistently to
> articulate by way of emergences, we have to prepare ourselves for a
> paradigm shift to happen before it will become possible to articulate them
> all.
Right! How do we know what can't be articulated? Therefore, defining
"tacit knowledge" as that which cannot be articulated, is problematic.
> Fred Nichols is right to insist that we can't articulate our tacit
> knowledge, but in a manner which he perhaps will not agree to. When we
> articulate our tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, the tacit
> knowledge decreases faster than what the explicit knowledge increases.
> This is a direct consequence of the "measurement problem" of Quantum
> Mechanics. Thus, should we not take CARE of our tacit knowledge as in rote
> learning, our tacit knowledge will eventually become depleted. In other
> words, there will be no tacit knowledge left any more to be articulated.
> We can't make something out of nothing.
I have to agree with Fred here. The knowledge doesn't get depleted
because it moves from the "unarticulatable" to the "articulatable"
(explicit or implicit by Fred's definition) category. One still has the
knowledge.
> Often a student comes in grave dispair to me -- his/her rote learning has
> finally brought an end to his/her academical career. --snip-- It is then
> when I experience most how little we have succeeded in articulating
> "create knowledge". --snip-- Each student develops his/her own ways to "create > knowledge". My
> task is to find the patterns common to all of them and myself. One of my
> greatest joys is to find out just how much patterns we have in common.
> >[Host's Note: So... do we need another category for
> >knowledge which has not yet been articulated, but could be?
> > ..Rick]
Rick, I don't think we need another category (assuming we already have
tacit and explicit knowledge]. What you're describing can be called
"unarticulated knowledge".
What I believe At is describing is
something I despair in my own children, i.e. an reluctance to understand
first principles (which is really about acquiring tacit knowledge), and
a desire to be shown how to get the answer for the particular problem.
In their context (spend as little time as possible to get a good grade,
so that there's more time for fun), it makes a lot of sense to go for
the answers. With our "wisdom", we can see what it leads to down the
road, i.e. not a lot of tacit knowledge in their heads.
In other words, the students have memorized enough explicit knowledge that
they can apply to taking exams. But, not internalizing this into tacit
knowledge in THEIR heads, means that they don't really know much about the
subject they were supposedly studying.
> What makes me very sad is that I had to use an example from the
> physico-chemical world to illustrate how tacit knowledge operates. By
> using such an example, the far majority of fellow learners will feel
> themselves excluded.
I hope not. I think it makes perfect sense to use examples from one's
own discipline.
At, thanks for your commitment to this LO group. I don't read eveything
that you or anyone else writes - I don't have enough hours in the day! But
thanks for your contribution on this particular subject.
Regards,
--Patrick Sue <p.sue@home.com>
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.