Continuing my exploration of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) text, I come next to their theories about explicit and tacit knowledge.  Apart from the fact that they use knowledge in the singular, I agree with many others that these concepts are very plausible.  They say:

In this book, we classify human knowledge into two kinds. One is explicit knowledge, which can be articulated in formal knowledge including grammatical statements, mathematical expressions, specifications, manuals, and so forth. This kind of knowledge thus can be transmitted across individuals formally and easily. This has been the dominant mode of knowledge in the Western philosophical tradition. However, we shall argue, a more important kind of knowledge is tacit knowledge, which is hard to articulate with formal language. It is personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involves intangible factors such as personal belief, perspectives, and the value system. Tacit knowledge has been overlooked as a critical component of collective human behaviour (Preface, p.viii).

This passage is an acknowledgement that there is more than one form of knowledge. In addition, the recognition that not all forms of knowledge can be quantifiable fits well with many of the arguments in this blog.  Many scientists, in particular, have relied almost exclusively on what they might call “hard facts”. Data that were not quantifiable have often been dismissed by them. It is gratifying, then, to read an acknowledgement of the importance of alternative ways of knowing.

A critique of the authors is that they do not go far enough in identifying only two forms of knowledge. For example, elsewhere in this blog, I introduced the work of Tony Ward, who points to body knowledge, and this is neither explicit nor tacit, according to the definition given. Here, I am committed to continuing the search for other ways of knowing, and resisting the idea that there is only one form of knowledge which can be managed.