Tacit Knowledge: A Refinement and Empirical Test of the Academic Tacit Knowledge Scale

Abstract

Researchers have linked tacit knowledge to improved organizational performance, but research on how to measure tacit knowledge is scarce. In the present study, the authors proposed and empirically tested a model of tacit knowledge and an accompanying measurement scale of academic tacit knowledge. They present 6 hypotheses that support the proposed tacit knowledge model regarding the role of cognitive (self-motivation, self-organization); technical (individual task, institutional task); and social (task-related, general) skills. The authors tested these hypotheses with 542 responses to the Academic Tacit Knowledge Scale, which included the respondents' grade point average-the performance variable. All 6 hypotheses were supported.

Dealing with customer misbehaviour

“…This adds to the findings of Insch et al (2008) regarding the social dimension of knowledge, e.g. knowledge of self, tasks, and other people.…”

“…Implicit knowledge is always enacted in a practical dimension of doing, performing, assessing in different situations. In line with this, Insch et al (2008) propose a multidimensional model of the underlying dimensions of tacit knowledge, adding to Baumards (1999) cognitive and technical skills dimensions, a third dimension that incorporates Wagner's (1987) concept of a social dimension of tacit knowledge, e.g. knowledge of self, tasks, and other people.…”

A Phase Model of Intergenerational Learning in Organizations

“…Second, scholars have called for more attention to the social aspects of tacit knowledge in organizational research, because employees do not perform work tasks in a social vacuum (Insch, McIntyre, & Dawley, 2008). Social knowledge comprises skills such as knowing how to effectively interact with others and how to manage (long-term) relationships.…”

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions in the emergency department: An ethnography of tacit knowledge in practice

“…This type of knowledge is based on acquired expertise or habitual practices that the expert practitioner may find difficult not only to articulate, but even to recognise at all; such knowledge becomes taken for granted, although often shared in a particular subculture (Insch, McIntyre, & Dawley, 2008;Spradley, 1979).…”