Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management LO23944

From: Fred Nickols (nickols@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/10/00


Replying to Patrick Sue in LO23908 --

>The Canadian Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary define
>"tacit" as "unspoken" and "not spoken", respectively. It comes from the
>Latin verb "tacere", which means "be silent". Therefore, "tacit
>knowledge" is knowledge that is in unarticulated form, not necessarily
>knowledge which CANNOT be articulated. Knowledge in unarticulated form
>can only exist in people's minds/bodies.

Patrick: I'm curious. What is the point of introducing another,
different definition of "tacit"? The discussion to date hangs off
Polanyi's definition. I've already acknowledged that using a different
definition of "tacit" alters the ground rules for the discussion.

Patrick continues (regarding my paper):

>The paper does a very good job of explaining the "Knowledge in Knowledge
>Management". My complaint here is that the definition of "tacit
>knowledge" is not consistent with what I believe to be understood in the
>KM universe of discourse.

I am inclined to agree with you, Patrick. However, common usage is not
necessarily the correct or best usage.

>"Implicit knowledge" I am less concerned about,
>because usage of this phrase is less consistent. However, "tacit
>knowledge" is widely used to mean "knowledge in people's heads".

That's a locus question, Patrick, and it ignores observations by scholars
and researchers that know-how is often situated elsewhere in our bodies.
Of accomplished pianists, for example, it is frequently said that the
know-how is in the fingers. To use a hypothetical example, he ability of
a mechanic to tighten a wrench to very tight standards without the use of
a torque wrench doesn't mean to me that the tacit knowledge is in the
mechanic's head; instead, I think of it as residing in the mechanic's
muscles and joints, more specifically in that sense known as "kinesthesia"
(do I have that spelled correctly?).

<snip several citations in support of Patrick's view>

>This may all seem to be mere semantics. However, I think it's very
>important, if our intention is to learn, that we mean the same thing when
>we use a word or phrase, especially "knowledge". I think this is the
>issue that the "On Definitions" discussion thread raises.

I'm close to agreeing with you here, Patrick. I think if meaningful
discourse is to occur, terms must often be defined in commonly accepted
ways else no communication can occur. However, I doubt that there will
ever come a time when we all mean the same thing when we use a word or
phrase, especially knowledge. One place where communication breaks down
is when a definition is presented and then rejected. Accepting a
definition for the purpose of discussion doesn't necessarily mean that
definition has to be accepted for any other purpose.

More directly, you and others are perfectly free and entitled to define
"tacit knowledge" in ways that differ from the way in which Polanyi
defined it. That does not make you correct and me or Polanyi incorrect;
it merely signifies that our discourse begins from different premises. On
the other hand, if your aim is for me to accept your definition, then I
must politely, respectfully and firmly decline.

-- 

Fred Nickols The Distance Consulting Company "Assistance at A Distance" http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095

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.