Using Polanyi’s understanding, all knowing is either tacit or rooted in tacit. He also contends that conversion of the type suggested by Nonaka is not possible. It comes down to Nonaka speaking of something other than what Polanyi identified, yet using Polanyi’s language. This video perpetuates this misunderstanding of Polanyi’s work.
A contention that tacit cannot be converted to explicit is incorrect. However, it is correct to suggest that there is no explicit representation of knowledge that does not scaffold upon tacit. Even mathematics, with its explicit symbolic representations of knowledge, relies on what mathematicians cannot describe. The dichotomy between tacit and explicit knowledge is false. Knowledge exists on a continuum between the two -- i.e., more tacit, or more explicit, without belonging exclusively to either.
Again, and with respect, using Polanyi’s understanding and definitions, what I wrote is correct. While you and others have used these words to mean different things, they have missed the essence of Polanyi’s work and, thus, lost its benefits. As merely one example, Polanyi speaks of tacit knowing, not tacit knowledge, a significant distinction. Nonaka has gained credibility by publishing his thoughts where he has, but it does not make them a correct understanding of the root he tries to appropriate as the foundation for what he contends. I encourage you to deeply immerse yourself in Polanyi’s work, rather than relying on derivative writings that (again) misappropriate what he observed and described.
Thanks you Thomas
Using Polanyi’s understanding, all knowing is either tacit or rooted in tacit. He also contends that conversion of the type suggested by Nonaka is not possible.
It comes down to Nonaka speaking of something other than what Polanyi identified, yet using Polanyi’s language.
This video perpetuates this misunderstanding of Polanyi’s work.
A contention that tacit cannot be converted to explicit is incorrect. However, it is correct to suggest that there is no explicit representation of knowledge that does not scaffold upon tacit. Even mathematics, with its explicit symbolic representations of knowledge, relies on what mathematicians cannot describe.
The dichotomy between tacit and explicit knowledge is false. Knowledge exists on a continuum between the two -- i.e., more tacit, or more explicit, without belonging exclusively to either.
Again, and with respect, using Polanyi’s understanding and definitions, what I wrote is correct.
While you and others have used these words to mean different things, they have missed the essence of Polanyi’s work and, thus, lost its benefits.
As merely one example, Polanyi speaks of tacit knowing, not tacit knowledge, a significant distinction.
Nonaka has gained credibility by publishing his thoughts where he has, but it does not make them a correct understanding of the root he tries to appropriate as the foundation for what he contends.
I encourage you to deeply immerse yourself in Polanyi’s work, rather than relying on derivative writings that (again) misappropriate what he observed and described.
Thanks for replying!
So informative, 🇿🇦🙏🏾
Loved this
Thank you
thank you