Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  measuring tacit knowledge

    Posted 01-07-2011 01:52

    Can anyone please suggest some scales/how to measure tacit knowledge?

     

    I am looking at a project measuring tacit knowledge in engineering professionals and would appreciate any advice you can give.

     

    Dennis

     

    Dr Dennis Rose
    Lecturer
    School of Management & Marketing
    Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland
    SPRINGFIELD  Australia. Q 4300
    Tel: +61 7 34704542 Fax: +61 7 34704501 Mobile: 0402 225701

     


    This email (including any attached files) is confidential and is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you received this email by mistake, please, as a courtesy, tell the sender, then delete this email.

    The views and opinions are the originator's and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Southern Queensland. Although all reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that this email contained no viruses at the time it was sent we accept no liability for any losses arising from its receipt.

    The University of Southern Queensland is a registered provider of education with the Australian Government (CRICOS Institution Code No's. QLD 00244B / NSW 02225M)


  • 2.  measuring tacit knowledge

    Posted 01-09-2011 08:55

    Dennis:

     

    The key to measuring tacit knowledge is the definition of it. I did a proof of Polanyi's tacit knowledge theory for my dissertation. If you go to www.coalescentknowledge.com

    Working Papers tab,  you will find a paper discussing the issues of tacit knowledge definition.  Polanyi believe that "All knowledge comes from the tacit dimension". I believe that this is not correct, because you are not using all knowledge that you were not aware of in a tacit mode. Most people believe that you cannot measure something that you are unaware of. In the proof of Polanyi's theory on tacit knowledge, I accepted his belief that all knowledge comes from the tacit dimension. If this is  the case, then your explicit knowledge (knowledge you know that you know) came from the tacit knowledge dimension. I needed to separate knowledge by sources, since both are individual knowledge. I came to the conclusion that there are two sources of information that becomes knowledge: 1. Self, 2. Others.   In the self source, the person did their investigation and determined what is true.  From the others source in many cases, people tend to accept the information as true and do not question it. I have a paper that I am working on that will show my theory on the conversion of information in to knowledge, etc. I look at the world as having three (3) knowledge dimensions: 1. Tacit (Individual), 2. Explicit (Individual), and 3. Coalescent (Shared).

    1.       Tacit per Polanyi has an empirical proof of theory (self)

    2.       Explicit generally accepted and is exported as information (Self and Others)

    3.       Coalescent, which comes from Others has an empirical proof of theory

     

    Your opportunity requires you decide if you are looking at tacit from an individual or others perspective?

    Things I do may appear to be tacit to an observer, but are not tacit to me.

     

    I believe that explicit knowledge could become tacit for me. Example: Driving a car.  Many of the variables that I paid attention to when I learned to drive are now process in the tacit mode.

     

    To accomplish your objective to measure engineering tacit knowledge. I believe that you need to define the opportunity in more detail.

     

    If you wish to contact me off the discussion board, then send an email to keith-aom@morgan.org

     

    Keith Morgan Ph.D.

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Dennis Rose
    Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:52 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: [OB-LIST] measuring tacit knowledge

     

    Can anyone please suggest some scales/how to measure tacit knowledge?

     

    I am looking at a project measuring tacit knowledge in engineering professionals and would appreciate any advice you can give.

     

    Dennis

     

    Dr Dennis Rose
    Lecturer
    School of Management & Marketing
    Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland
    SPRINGFIELD  Australia. Q 4300
    Tel: +61 7 34704542 Fax: +61 7 34704501 Mobile: 0402 225701

     


    This email (including any attached files) is confidential and is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you received this email by mistake, please, as a courtesy, tell the sender, then delete this email.

    The views and opinions are the originator's and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Southern Queensland. Although all reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that this email contained no viruses at the time it was sent we accept no liability for any losses arising from its receipt.

    The University of Southern Queensland is a registered provider of education with the Australian Government (CRICOS Institution Code No's. QLD 00244B / NSW 02225M)



  • 3.  measuring tacit knowledge

    Posted 01-09-2011 11:09
    Dennis wrote: Can anyone please suggest some scales/how to measure tacit knowledge?

    You need to first clarify what you mean by tacit knowledge. The phrase is used in different ways by different scholars and in different disciplines. Tacit knowledge is one of those pop psychology mushy, ill-defined phrases such as "emotional intelligence."  

    Consider how your conception of tacit knowledge differs from job knowledge.  Consider whether you are trying to draw a distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge (and what is a reasonable definition of implicit knowledge). Consider whether you consider tacit knowledge to be domain specific or generalizable across domains.  How does your conception of tacit knowledge differ from expertise?

    Assuming that your idea of tacit knowledge is related to a Sternberg-ish approach to "practical intelligence", consider these three articles:

    Gottfredson, L.S.  (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence, Intelligence, 31, 343- 397.

    McDaniel, M.A. & Whetzel, D.L. (2005). Situational judgment test research: Informing the debate on practical intelligence theory. Intelligence, 33, 515-525.

    Ree, M.J,  Earles, J.A.(1993). g Is to psychology what carbon is to chemistry: A reply to Sternberg and Wagner, McClelland, and Calfee.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 11-12.

    Best wishes,

    Mike

    Michael A. McDaniel, Ph.D.
    Professor - Human Resources and
    Organizational Behavior
    Department of Management, Research Professor, Department of Psychology
    Virginia Commonwealth University
    301 West Main Street, , PO Box 844000
    Richmond, VA 23284-4000

    http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/
    voice: 804.827.0209
    e-mail:
    MAMcDani@vcu.edu
    skype: MichaelAMcDaniel

    Doctoral Program in Management

    The Management Department of the VCU School of Business offers a Ph.D. in Business. Participating faculty with research interests in OB and HR include: Ron Humphrey, Sven Kepes, Michael McDaniel, In-Sue Oh, Doug Pugh, & Anson Seers.

    Students with interest in the doctoral program, should contact Anson Seers.





    From: Dennis Rose <Dennis.Rose@USQ.EDU.AU>
    To: <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Date: 01/08/2011 10:48 PM
    Subject: [OB-LIST] measuring tacit knowledge
    Sent by: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>





    Can anyone please suggest some scales/how to measure tacit knowledge?
     
    I am looking at a project measuring tacit knowledge in engineering professionals and would appreciate any advice you can give.
     
    Dennis
     
    Dr Dennis Rose
    Lecturer
    School of Management & Marketing

    Faculty of Business,
    University of Southern Queensland
    SPRINGFIELD  Australia. Q 4300

    Tel: +61 7 34704542 Fax: +61 7 34704501 Mobile: 0402 225701

     


    This email (including any attached files) is confidential and is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you received this email by mistake, please, as a courtesy, tell the sender, then delete this email.

    The views and opinions are the originator's and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Southern Queensland. Although all reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that this email contained no viruses at the time it was sent we accept no liability for any losses arising from its receipt.

    The University of Southern Queensland is a registered provider of education with the Australian Government (CRICOS Institution Code No's. QLD 00244B / NSW 02225M)