Tacit knowledge as a multilayer phenomenon: the “onion” model

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to clarify the term “tacit knowledge” and suggests the “onion model” as a way to explore conceptually linked layers of tacit knowledge. The model allows the application of different methodologies to elicit tacit knowledge in each layer, the ability to infer tacit knowledge in other layers from tacit knowledge gained in another layer and the exploration of the dynamics of tacit knowledge among the various layers presented in the model. Conceptual and practical advantages compared to prior works on tacit knowledge are discussed. Design/methodology/approach The main theoretical and methodological dilemmas discussed in the literature regarding tacit knowledge are reviewed. The “onion model” presented in this paper suggests an approach and methodologies that address the issues raised in the literature. The different layers of the model are demonstrated by prior research studies. Findings The “onion model” discussed in this study points to various layers of tacit knowledge and the links among them, allowing a research-based approach, as well as various practices. Research limitations/implications This paper discusses different layers of tacit knowledge relying on previous works that have dealt with these layers independently. The model as a whole and the dynamics among the layers are yet to be empirically investigated. Practical implications The “onion model” provides a conceptual framework that can be used for research and diagnosis aimed at exploring tacit knowledge that can serve individual and organizational development. Originality/value The approach discussed in this paper addresses some major problems discussed in the literature on tacit knowledge.

The Continuous Recombination of Codification and Personalisation KM strategies: A Retrospective Study

“…This last point, together with the findings of the recent literature (e.g. Venkitachalam and Willmott, 2017;Asher and Popper, 2019) raises the question whether the distinction between the two approaches and the elements on which they are based is always so sharp to be clearly used in practical terms, or is just a more generic reference. This point clearly deserves further analysis.…”

Multidisciplinary Peer-Mentoring Groups Supporting Knowledge Sharing in Doctoral Education

“…Instead, they seemed to provide a safe space (Griffin et al, 2015;Turner et al, 2012) for the participants to exercise active agency and share experiences as well as practical and reflexive knowledge (c.f. Allas et al, 2017;Asher & Popper, 2019), helping them to understand what specific issues mean when contextualised in their own discipline.…”

Effect of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Sharing on Teacher Innovation Capability

“…Knowledge is classified into two types including: tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). The definition of tacit knowledge is knowledge that is still in the human mind and is very personal (Chen et al, 2018;Holford, 2018;Khoshorour & Gilaninia, 2018;Zebal, Ferdous & Chambers, 2019;Agyemang & Boateng, 2019;Perez-Fuillerat et al, 2018), it is difficult to be formulated and divided naturally (Deranek, McLeod & Schmidt, 2017;Wang & Liu, 2019;Asher & Popper, 2019) so that the transformation requires personal interaction (Lee, 2019). This tactical knowledge is rooted in one's actions and experiences, including his idealism, values, and emotions (Boske & Osanloo, 2015;Kawamura, 2016;Hartley, 2018).…”