Types of knowledge

As there is no universally accepted definition of knowledge, not surprisingly, there are numerous classifications of the knowledge types. This chapter discusses the two most important ones. The basic understanding of the terms introduced in this chapter will be necessary for the current research.

A priori vs. a posteriori

Two kinds of knowledge can be distinguished based on their relationship with experience:

a priori (―from what comes before‖ in Latin) and a posteriori (―from what comes later‖ in Latin) knowledge. A proposition is known a priori if it can be derived through reasoning without perception, observation or experimentation. For example, ―two is not equal to three‖. By contrast, a posteriori knowledge can be created or justified only by some reference to experience. For example, ―it is raining outside‖. A posteriori knowledge is, therefore, also called empirical knowledge.

There has been a long standing disagreement between rationalists and empiricists about the existence of any non-trivial a priori knowledge. While rationalists claim that there is a priori knowledge, empiricists hold that all knowledge is ultimately derived from sense experience. A priori propositions do not constitute ―real‖ knowledge – argues David Hume, but for the sake of completeness he adds that ―though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact, it must be acknowledged that this guide is not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us into errors.‖ (Hume 1748)

The empiricist view, the importance of experience, will play a key role in the two case studies of this research.

Tacit vs. codified

―Tacit knowledge is personal, context-specific, and therefore hard to formalize and communicate.‖ (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995) Explicit or ―codified‖ knowledge, on the other hand, can be articulated, transmitted and even stored. The Hungarian polymath Mihály

Polányi states that learning is a personal process, where previous knowledge influences how new knowledge can be gained. Therefore all knowledge has a tacit component and explicit knowledge, that can be expressed and easily transmitted, represents only the tip of the iceberg of the entire body of knowledge. As Polányi (1964, p. 4) puts it, ―We can know more than we can tell‖. The iceberg metaphor (Figure 3) is frequently used to illustrate tacit and codified knowledge: the part of the iceberg which is visible above the sea level is codified, while there is a huge tacit part underwater which is not in our sight.

Figure 3: Tacit vs. codified knowledge (Source: own figure)

Polányi‘s idea was a breakthrough, because in traditional epistemology, knowledge is absolute, the subject and the object of perception are separated, human beings as the subject of perception acquire knowledge by analyzing external objects. In contrast, Polányi was very skeptical about objective knowledge, he believed that knowledge acquisition is a very human activity, the people gaining the knowledge are always involved with their own personality, feelings, and prior experience. This is what he called ―indwelling‖. The Enlightenment tried to separate personal involvement from objective science, but for Polányi this is not possible, since indwelling is integral to the process of knowing. (Morton 2002)

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), who built on Polányi‘s ideas, even concluded that knowledge means different things to different people; therefore the commonly used definition of knowledge as a justified true belief becomes useless in practice. They argue for a revised definition, ―Knowledge [is] a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the ‗truth‘‖ (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). Table 1 shows the two types of knowledge:

Table 1: Tacit vs. explicit knowledge (Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, p. 61.) Tacit Knowledge (Subjective) Explicit Knowledge (Objective) Knowledge of experiences (body) Knowledge of rationality (mind) Simultaneous knowledge (here and

now)

Sequential knowledge (there and then) Analog knowledge (practice) Digital knowledge (theory)

Transmission costs of codified knowledge is an interesting topic. On one hand, since it can be well articulated and stored, the marginal costs of transmission may be low. This is why knowledge management practitioners describe codified knowledge with a catchy adjective,

―slippery‖. On the other hand, understanding codified knowledge may require prior (codified and tacit) knowledge and in its absence the transmission costs can rise significantly. Distance in terms of time, space, culture, and social environment are factors which can complicate the transmission. This phenomenon is commonly described as ―what is codified for one person may be tacit for another‖. (Cowan & David & Foray 1999) In contrast to this tacit vs. codified classification, Leonard and Sensiper (1998) describe knowledge as a continuum: ―Knowledge exists on a spectrum. At one extreme, it is almost completely tacit, that is semiconscious and unconscious knowledge held in people‘s heads and bodies. At the other end of the spectrum, knowledge is almost completely explicit or codified, structured and accessible to people other than the individuals originating it. Most knowledge of course exists between these extremes. Explicit elements are objective, rational, and created in the ‗then and there‘, while the tacit elements are subjective experiential and created in the ‗here and now‘‖.

The separation of tacit and codified knowledge is sometimes described using different terminologies. For example, while Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) use the terms analog and digital, Hildreth & Wright & Kimble (1999) refers to hard and soft knowledge, Conklin

(1996) separates formal and informal knowledge. He considers formal knowledge as that which is found in books, manuals, and documents, and which can be easily shared in training courses. Informal knowledge is described as the knowledge that is gained in the process of creating formal knowledge. Important to know that these are variations of the same ideas. The distinction between tacit and codified knowledge as well as the separation of a priori and a posteriori knowledge can be traced back to the fundamental philosophical conflict between the Autopoietic and the Representational View (Von Krogh & Roos 1996) – as shown in Table 2:

Table 2: Autopoietic vs. representational view (Source: Hildreth & Kimble 2002)

Autopoietic View Representational View

Knowledge is creational and based on distinction making in observation

Knowledge is representation of a pre-given reality

Knowledge is history dependent and thus is context sensitive

Knowledge is unchanging, universal, and objective

Knowledge is not directly transferable Knowledge is directly transferable