Transforming Competition into Collaboration
[ Home ] [ Up ]

Reflections on Concept of Knowledge

Defining the term Knowledge is very difficult, although we may instinctively know what knowledge is, we find it difficult to articulate its definition (Pears, 1972). This question has been reflected by many great philosophers throughout the ages, from the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle in the 17th century to the present age, theorists propose many different accounts of knowledge, and as Pears (1972) notes that theories seem to go through periods of fashion, for example the 18th century theorists concentrated on the mind, while 19th century theorists investigated language. More recently economists, organizational theorists and management professionals have become interested in knowledge (Stenmark, 2002).

 Pears (1972) judges that knowledge cannot be universally defined and that there are many views of knowledge, therefore some definitions of knowledge may overlook certain characteristics of it, while others pertain to one particular aspect. He suggests three types of knowledge, “knowledge of facts, acquaintance, and knowledge of how to do things” , each of which can be further subdivided. Other authors have also subdivided knowledge into its constituent parts: table (3.1) gives the brief type by some of the authors

 Holden (2002) states that knowledge is notoriously difficult to define, and that the multitude of definitions of knowledge presents a “definitional dilemma” , while Polanyi states that all knowledge is tacit knowledge, which can only be expressed through language (Sveiby- 1994).

Table 3.1

Different types of knowledge

(Source: Stenmark, 2001; 2002; Hildreth and Kimble, 2002)

              If, as Polanyi and his supporters’ state, tacit knowledge is only in the mind of the individual and cannot be physically externalized, how can there be explicit knowledge? Explicit knowledge by definition can be physically externalized. Therefore, explicit knowledge is synonymous to information. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) are very popular and influential, and were some of the first writers on knowledge management, their use of the phrase ‘explicit knowledge’ continues to confuse the distinction between the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’.

The argument for knowledge to be basically “tactic” appears logical and well supported; therefore, this study will treat knowledge as tacit knowledge. The definition of knowledge viewed by this model is that given by Stenmark (2002), who states that, “knowledge is based on personal experiences and cultural inheritance and is fundamentally tacit” –

Difference between Knowledge and Information

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) introduce the idea of ‘articulation’, which is the process whereby tacit knowledge becomes explicit, i.e. tangible. Moreover, Polanyi (1958 in Stenmark, 2002) states that knowledge is ‘hidden’ and not even the individual knows the knowledge he possesses. While Pears (1972) believes that knowledge cannot exist without the individual knowing that it exists, and that knowledge can be externalized in books. These contradicting theories can partly be attributed to the lack of consensus as to what knowledge and information are. The distinctions between these two words is often blurred and this is reflected in the literature. Table (3.2) below gives definition of information and knowledge as stated by some of the well-known authors the field.

Table 3.2

definition of information and knowledge

Indeed, Davenport (1997 in Stenmark, 2002) and Davenport and Prusak (1998 in Stenmark, 2002) use the words “Information” and Knowledge” synonymously. 

It is interesting to note that most of the authors use similar words in describing knowledge like truths, beliefs, concepts, ability to assign meaning, experiences and value, all of these words represent a dynamic nature of knowledge stressing that knowledge can not be treated as an object.