About Tacit Knowledge and Explicit Knowledge
We have heard a lot of times the
terms ‘Tacit’ and ‘Explicit’ knowledge. Probably so many times that could seem
Knowledge Management has nothing else to explain but these terms. This is not
totally true, but it’s a little bit right because these terms are real bases
for Knowledge.
About Philosophy
It is well known the existence of Philosophy
Schools that from centuries ago until today have maintained several Points of
View –still valid- about the World’s reality, and related to this, about
Knowledge. We are not going to detail them here, but at least we mention them
as a key reference about knowledge.
Trying to understand ‘why’ about things, will
always bring us solid bases to lead our acts, despite we know that philosophy
discussions doesn’t solve our day to day business problems.
But it’s worth to think about the
primitive mechanism that works in the world and understand conscientiously
–unconscientiously we already know- what happens around us, related to
knowledge. So, in this way, will be easier to plan present and future
strategies.
Let’s start considering the
existence of a ‘World’ composed with ‘Objects’ and ‘Subjects’
able to know the objects. We’ll talk about persons as ‘Subjects’.
About Knowledge
Knowledge is described from
philosophy as a flow, ‘a relationship between a Subject who access to Know
(cognoscente), and an Object that is known’.
Based on that, I’m going to explain
this simple schema:
About Organic Knowledge and Inorganic Knowledge
The
‘Real World’ –what we usually agree in considering as a real world-
remains captured in the ‘subject’s mind’ by the ‘experience’ that our
senses allows us.
The
subject’s ability and capacity, his previous experiences, his beliefs, etc..
will quickly configure in his mind an ‘Interpreted World’ that he will
incorporate as his own knowledge and his own criteria.
So, if we think in a deer, it exist –firstly- in such real world, and this is not dependent that we know it or not. But once we know it, exists as well in our mind, and have an specific meaning for us.
In
addition, humans have the distinctive capacity to ‘take out’ this deer from
their mind, to rebuild it in a ‘Symbolic World’, that allows to communicate and
transmit knowledge. So, the caveman paint the deer in his cave and transmit its
existence to other clan members that probably haven’t seen it.
The
‘Symbolic World’ is the third level where things ‘exist’. And is the
second level of knowledge, after the knowledge in people’s mind (‘Interpreted
World’) and beyond the ‘original’ reality (‘Real World’).
The
Eiffel Tower exist in Paris, (1rst) Reality or ‘Real World’.
Exist as well in our minds (2nd) ‘Organic Knowledge’ or ‘Interpreted
World’, and also exist in photographies, films, paintings, books… etc, (3rd.)
‘Inorganic Knowledge’ or ‘Symbolic World’.
About
To Experience, To Think, To
Teach, To Learn and To Apply
The
‘Subject’ ‘Experiments’ the ‘Real World’, and acquires a direct
knowledge about it, that is stored in his mind.
After
that, ‘Thinking’, the subject is able to discover and design in his
mind, new realities, based on the existing ones.
Then,
the subject can ‘Teach’ his knowledge, that is, take them out from his
mind, giving form to them, and configuring a ‘Symbolic World’ of knowledge (ex. a book). When we ‘teach’
verbally, we externalise our knowledge through the language, and the sonorous
waves acts as evanescent medium of it. If we record our voice in a magnetic
medium, this knowledge remains some more time there, but neither forever.
Who
uses the ‘formalized’ knowledge from the ‘Symbolic World’, we can say, is ‘Learning’.
How many people knows Eiffel Tower and never have been there?.
Finally,
a subject can ‘Apply’ his knowledge back to the real world, transforming
it. Eiffel did experience the world, did learn, did think, did teach, and finally
did apply his knowledge directly to the real world, transforming it when he
created the famous Eiffel Tower in Paris.
Also
what we have ‘Taught’, this is, the knowledge we have externalised in several
mediums, ‘Transforms’ somehow the ‘Real World’, in which the ‘Symbolic
World’ represents the area that explains and projects it.
About Apprentice and Master
The
Subject ‘Experiences’ the ‘Real World’ and ‘Learn’ from the ‘Symbolic World’. ‘Experiencing’
and ‘Learning’ he makes an ‘Apprentice’ function. ‘Teaching’
and ‘Applying’ his knowledge, the subject makes a ‘Master’
function. When the subject ‘Thinks’ is ‘Autodidact’ and makes a
function of Master and Apprentice at the same time.
About Theory and Practice
When
we have a relationship with the ‘Real World’, ‘Experiencing’ and ‘Applying’,
we are making a function of ‘Practice’. When our relationship is with
the ‘Symbolic World’, ‘Teaching’ and ‘Learning’, we are making a
function of ‘Theory’.
Lets
go to think now in terms of Knowledge
Acquisition, Creation and Transmission:
About Acquire, Create and Transmit Knowledge
The
knowledge in people is ‘Acquired’ –with
the intellect and senses help- ‘Experiencing’ and ‘Learning’. It
is ‘Created’ by ‘Thinking’. And
it is ‘Transmitted’ by ‘Teaching’
and ‘Applying’.
About the Reality, the Tacit Knowledge and the
Explicit Knowledge
In
short, it exists a ‘Real World’ (a) which knowledge and explanations are
held as hypothesis in our minds, configuring an ‘Interpreted World’ (b).
One portion of this ‘Interpreted World’, we move it to external supports,
building what we could agree in calling a ‘Symbolic World’ (c), that
explains the ‘Real World’ and its potential projections (like science fiction),
in a giving moment, and from particular subjects points of view.
The
‘Interpreted World’, this ‘Organic Knowledge’ in our minds, we could
agree in to assimilate to the ‘Tacit Knowledge’. And the ‘Tacit
Knowledge’ that we put in external supports (with several degrees of
durability), the ‘Symbolic World’ or ‘Inorganic Knowledge’, we could
agree to assimilate to the so called ‘Explicit Knowledge’.
In
the traditional literature about them (Tacit and Explicit Knowledge), some
authors suggests that Tacit Knowledge is only the knowledge that is difficult
–or even impossible- to make it explicit, to be transmitted or to be formally
represented.
This
consideration can create confusing frontiers. So it could be interested to
start with more solid principles. Let’s go to say that we can identify an
accepted ‘Reality’, also we can identify an ‘Organic Knowledge’ (Tacit)
in all the set of subjects (some of them more, some of them less!), and we can
identify an ‘Inorganic Knowledge’ (Explicit), in a subset of
objects that have been elaborated by the subjects.
In
a company, a good knowledge management practice must deal with Explicit
Knowledge and Tacit Knowledge regardless of whether Tacit Knowledge is more or
less explicit or not, having this a different meaning in different contexts.
So,
as we commented in the beginning of this article, if we hear talking so much
about Tacit and Explicit Knowledge is because –from this point of view- they
cover all existing knowledge, if we consider that exists a ‘Reality’ and you
can know it ‘Tacitly’ and that this knowledge can be recorded ‘Explicitly’.
This
schema is quite valid for an earlier and primitive social stage, and it is
useful to argue about Knowledge. But
doesn’t close the reflection we can do about it, because in an increasing way,
we are incorporating technology as extension of our perceptive capacities, and
even as extension of our capacity to think. And this will drive us, for sure,
to new schemes to think about. With the above scheme, let’s go –at least- to
contribute to the debate.