But his effort must have involved a lot of
tacit knowledge known to him alone.»
Not exact matches
That is where the «
tacit knowledge» resides, in the main;
knowing where the bodies are buried, to mal - appropriate an expression.
So in all likelihood, making inferences requires both background
knowledge and experience thinking about what's missing from a text — in fact, we'd argue,
knowing what sorts of things are often missing in a text is a sort of
tacit knowledge that comes from experience.
My piece tries to make the point that most of what scientists
know is «
tacit» (i.e. not explicitly or often written down in the technical literature) and it is that
knowledge that allows them to quickly distinguish (with reasonable accuracy) what new papers are worth looking at in detail and which are not.
That is where the «
tacit knowledge» resides, in the main;
knowing where the bodies are buried, to mal - appropriate an expression.
Major areas where
tacit knowledge plays an important role, is that people in a field
know a) what didn't work, although at first glance it should have or might have, b) what was published and is worth ignoring and c) the small tricks that make a lot of things work.
Michael Polanyi's concept of «
tacit knowledge» in which «
knowing how» is opposed to «
knowing that» partly illuminates this idea also.
There are, however, strong
tacit knowledge transfer activities such as mentoring (in Canada, called articling) and communities of practice (in law,
known as practice groups) that do exist.
Our KM strategies quite rightly explore converting
tacit into explicit
knowledge by embedding context and deep
know - how (via annotations, etc.) into the precedents and best practices we produce.