How can we effectively share knowledge, particularly tacit knowledge, which cannot be easily encoded into information or implicit knowledge that is not consciously known?
The Nature of Knowledge
Knowledge is etched into our minds in long-term memory from experience, years of study, and informal learning. It only exists in the mind.
We are unsure how it is stored, but we know it is not stored as a list of questions and answers as you might find in a computer FAQ (frequently asked questions database).
It is stored somehow as a network of associated fragments in our brains.
Encoding Knowledge
There are broadly three types of knowledge: explicit knowledge can easily be codified, tacit knowledge that is not easily expressed or codified, and implicit knowledge that is not consciously known.
When we think about something, we dynamically assemble these pieces of knowledge, a mix of explicit and tacit, to construct a response to the desired outcome, such as a question, a problem, or something we wish to do.
Implicit knowledge isn't explicit knowledge that we're not currently thinking about.
Implicit knowledge isn't there the way ore is buried.
It's "there" only in the sense that we can generate it when required.
Most simply: That we can come up with an answer doesn't mean that the answer was lying dormant in us all along.
Answering questions is a creative act.
Although we can encode knowledge by writing it down, turning it into information, and thus sharing it, we can never fully encode everything we know about a subject. We certainly can never encode it so that it is easy for people with different levels of understanding to assimilate.
Knowledge is best shared through conversation
Because of this, knowledge is best shared through conversation.We always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down.
When we wish to explain something, we don’t know the recipient’s existing level of understanding or why they are asking the question, so we can only provide a general answer.
To respond more specifically, we need to learn more about the issue by conversing and assembling the knowledge that applies to that context.
In other words, an explanation is constructed in response to a question or a problem in a particular context and at a specific moment.
In a face-to-face conversation, you can offer information about the issue, probe deeper into the situation, gain a sense of what the other already knows, and so determine at what level to construct your answer. You can also ask about the meaning of a term you are not familiar with, seek the reasoning behind a conclusion if it’s not evident, and correct false assumptions.Sharing knowledge is not about giving people something or getting something from them. That is only valid for information sharing.
Sharing knowledge occurs when people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop new capacities for action; it is about creating learning processes.
The speaker and listener repeatedly swap places many times in a short period; the listener frequently interrupts the speaker, and the roles change.
Both parties actively try to understand what the other is attempting to convey.
We teachers - perhaps all human beings - are in the grip of an astonishing delusion.
We think that we can take a picture, a structure, a working model of something, constructed in our minds out of long experience and familiarity, and by turning that model into a string of words, transplant it whole into the mind of someone else.
Perhaps once in a thousand times, when the explanation is extraordinary good, and the listener extraordinary experienced and skillful at turning word strings into non-verbal reality, and when the explainer and listener share in common many of the experiences being talked about, the process may work, and some real meaning may be communicated.
Most of the time, explaining does not increase understanding, and may even lessen it.
Astrophysicist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | Janna Levin
This beautiful video demonstrates what it means to explain a high-level concept in five different layers of complexity – first to a child, then a teenager, then an undergrad majoring in the same subject, a grad student, and, finally, an expert.
In the video, astrophysicist Janna Levein’s conversation about gravity with the child is a world apart from her conversation with another expert in the field. Janna senses the person’s level of knowledge and adjusts the conversation to that level. The video is quite magical.
But watch carefully; although there is a certain degree of interaction and conversation between Janna and the students, there is no real dialogue. The conversations do not go that deep, and the students do not ask many probing questions. She also does not check that they have understood her. She mainly explains things; it is unclear that the students learn as much as they might if it were genuine dialogue.
Knowledge is best surfaced, constructed, and exchanged through conversation.
Credit: This post was inspired by a blog post by Nancy Dixon: Conversations That Share Tacit Knowledge
Things Todo
- Next time you wish someone to explain something to you, don’t ask them by email unless that is unavoidable but have a conversation with them face-to-face. You will get a better answer, learn more, and it will take less time.
Detailed Resources
- Article: Embodied Cognition by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021)
Posts that link to this post
POST NAVIGATION
CHAPTER NAVIGATION
Tags: conversational learning (19) | Dave Snowden (33) | David Weinberger (15) | dialogue (66) | implicit knowledge (4) | knowledge sharing (19) | mind (35) | Nancy Dixon (13) | Peter Senge (17) | tacit knowledge (10)
SEARCH
Blook SearchGoogle Web Search
Related Items
If you enjoy my work and find it valuable, please consider giving me a little support. Your donation will help cover some of my website hosting expenses.
Make a donation