Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge?
This paper starts with a critical assessment of the recent paper by Cowan, Foray and David. It also provides the authors' own assessment of why the tacit-codified distinction is important in relation to economic analysis and knowledge management practice. The criticism of Cowan, Foray and David centres on three points. Firstly, it is argued that the discussion on codification must make the fundamental distinction between knowledge about the world (know-what) and knowledge in the form of skills and competence (know-how). Secondly, it is argued that the dichotomy between codifiable and non-codifiable knowledge is problematic since it is rare that a body of knowledge can be completely transformed into codified form without losing some of its original characteristics and that most forms of relevant knowledge are mixed in these respects. Thirdly, we contest their implicit assumption that codification always represents progress. We conclude that for these reasons their intellectual exercise of extending definitions of what is codified and possible to codify, while in principle addressing very important issues related to innovation policy and knowledge management, ends up having limited practical implications for these areas. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Volume (Year): 11 (2002)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK|
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://icc.oupjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:11:y:2002:i:2:p:245-262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.