Tacit vs. explicit knowledge (was: PHD in Tech writing)

["Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

Mark Baker opined<<There is a fundamental difference between tacit knowledge
and explicit knowledge, and the way they are
gained. The tacit knowledge that informs human performance in so many areas
of life is developed not by the study of theory but by love and diligent
application.>>

True as far as it goes, but you err in disputing Jim Shaeffer's statement
that "one of the primary goals of technical communication is to transform
tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.": <<This is a fundamental
misunderstanding of what tacit knowledge is. Tacit knowledge is precisely
what the brain gains from experience. It is not expressible in formulas and
cannot be learned from books. The purpose of technical communication is to
support performance by supplying explicit information as and when it is
needed.>>

Nothing wrong with your definitions, but you're picking definitions that
support your own beliefs rather than paying attention to Jim's point.
Moreover, you're starting to speak in absolutes, which is rarely a sign that
you're making the effort to understand what the other person is saying. In
one broadly accepted definition, tacit knowledge is what designers have
because of the experience they gain with a product during its design phase
and subsequent testing. Our goal as writers is to transform that tacit
knowledge into something explicit for those who lack the designer's
knowledge. Making this knowledge explicit (via manuals, interface
improvements, tutorials, or whatever) gives our audiences a chance to use
the product, and through that use internalize (make tacit) the explicit
instructions. _That's_ what Jim was saying, and he's correct.

<<tacit knowledge is fundamentally different from explicit knowledge and one
cannot be transformed into the other.>>

The only difference between the two is whether the holder of the knowledge
is consciously aware of the knowledge. Beginners need explicit information;
once they've done a task for a while, that knowledge becomes implicit
(tacit) and they no longer specifically think about what they're doing. For
example, teaching someone to use a mouse requires us to convey (explicitly)
the tacit knowledge that moving this plastic thing causes the cursor to
move; having learned this, the user pushes the mouse around until they no
longer have to think about what they're doing. The knowledge is the same,
but now it's tacit.

<<It is a fundamental error (a reductio ad absurdum) to believe that,
because we are able to achieve greater explicit knowledge through study and
to improve performance through the application of explicit knowledge, that
tacit knowledge, formed through diligent application of the individual mind
and body, can be eliminated as the wellspring of human achievement. Theory
can supplement experience, it can never replace it or obviate the necessity
of acquiring experience through diligent application.>>

"Reductio ad absurdum" means carrying an argument to an extreme that
produces a result contrary to logic (an absurdity), not making a fundamental
error. Moreover, Jim didn't make a fundamental error in his posting. I don't
argue for a moment with your statement that theory and practice are
complementary, but you're vastly overstating your point and ignoring what
Jim had to say on this subject. Moreover, you're confounding theory with
explicit knowledge and thereby muddying the waters.

--Geoff Hart, geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
(try ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca if you get no response)
Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada
580 boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, Que., H9R 3J9 Canada 

"For what I have published, I can only hope to be pardoned; but for what I
have burned, I deserve to be praised."--Alexander Pope