Zaheen: সংশোধন
”’অব্যক্ত জ্ঞান”’ বলতে সেই জ্ঞানকে বোঝায় যা অভিব্যক্ত করা বা বের করে আনা দুরূহ এবং এ কারণে লিখে বা ভাষায় রূপদান করে এটিকে অন্যদের কাছে জ্ঞাপন করা কঠিন। এটি রৌপ, সংকেতায়িত বা [[ব্যক্ত জ্ঞান|ব্যক্ত জ্ঞানের]] বিপরীত একটি ধারণা। অব্যক্ত জ্ঞানের মধ্যে ব্যক্তিগত [[প্রজ্ঞা]] বা বিচক্ষণতা, [[ব্যক্তিগত অভিজ্ঞতা]], [[অন্তর্দৃষ্টি]] ও [[স্বজ্ঞা]]র মতো ব্যাপারগুলি অন্তর্ভুক্ত।<ref name=”:2″>{{Cite web|title=Tacit and Explicit Knowledge {{!}} Key Concepts in Information and Knowledge Management|url=https://www.tlu.ee/~sirvir/Information%20and%20Knowledge%20Management/Key_Concepts_of_IKM/tacit_and_explicit_knowledge.html|access-date=2021-04-15|website=www.tlu.ee}}</ref> একে ”’অনুক্ত জ্ঞান”’, ”’অনভিব্যক্ত জ্ঞান”’ বা ”’পরোক্ষ জ্ঞান”’ নামেও ডাকা হতে পারে।
উদাহরণস্বরূপ [[হিমালয় পর্বতমালা]] যে [[দক্ষিণ এশিয়া]]তে অবস্থিত, এটি এক ধরনের ব্যক্ত জ্ঞান, যেটিকে লিখে রাখা যায়, [[সম্প্রচার]] করা যায় ও প্রাপকের কাছে সেটি বোধগম্য হয়। এর বিপরীতে কোনও ভাষায় কথা বলা, বাইসাইকেল চালানো, ময়দার তাল মথা, কোনও সঙ্গীত[[যন্ত্রবাদন]] বা কোনও জটিল সরঞ্জাম নকশা ও ব্যবহার করার সামর্থ্য অর্জন করতে হলে এমন সব জ্ঞানের প্রয়োজন হতে পারে, যেগুলি সবসময় ব্যক্ত বা প্রত্যক্ষ না-ও হতে পারে। এমনকি বিশেষজ্ঞ চর্চাকারীরাও এগুলি ব্যাখ্যায় সফল না হতে পারে এবং এগুলিকে অপর কোনও ব্যক্তির কাছে জ্ঞাপন করা দুরূহ এমনকি অসম্ভব হতে পারে।
== সংজ্ঞা ==
অব্যক্ত জ্ঞান কথাটি দিয়ে ব্যক্তিদের অধিকারে থাকা এমন সব দক্ষতা, ধারণা ও অভিজ্ঞতাকে বোঝায়, যেগুলি নিয়মাবদ্ধ করা হয়নি এবং যেগুলিকে সহজভাবে অভিব্যক্ত করা দুরূহ।<ref name=”:0″>{{cite book |doi=10.5220/0005585901280135 |chapter=Do Australian Universities Encourage Tacit Knowledge Transfer? |title=Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management |year=2015 |last1=Chugh |first1=Ritesh |pages=128–135 |isbn=978-989-758-158-8 }}</ref> যেসব ব্যক্তি অব্যক্ত জ্ঞানের অধিকারী হন, তারা প্রায়শই তাদের অধিকৃত জ্ঞানের ব্যাপারে সচেতন নন এবং এগুলি কী করে অপরের কাছে মূল্যবান হতে পারে, সে সম্পর্কে অবগত নন। অব্যক্ত জ্ঞানের কার্যকর হস্তান্তরের জন্য নিবিড় ও ব্যাপক ব্যক্তিগত যোগাযোগ, নিয়মিত আন্তঃক্রিয়া ও আস্থার প্রয়োজন হয়।<ref name=”Goffin”>{{cite journal |last1=Goffin |first1=K. |last2=Koners |first2=U. |year=2011 |title=Tacit Knowledge, Lessons Learnt, and New Product Development |journal=[[Journal of Product Innovation Management]] |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=300–318 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00798.x }}</ref> এ ধরনের জ্ঞান কোনও নির্দিষ্ট প্রতিবেশে বা পরিস্থিতিতে চর্চার মাধ্যমে প্রকাশ পায় ও সামাজিক জালিকাব্যবস্থার মাধ্যমে সম্প্রচারিত হয়।<ref name=”Schmidt”>{{cite journal |last1=Schmidt |first1=Frank L. |last2=Hunter |first2=John E. |title=Tacit Knowledge, Practical Intelligence, General Mental Ability, and Job Knowledge |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |date=February 1993 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=8–9 |doi=10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770456 |s2cid=145203923 }}</ref> যখন অব্যক্ত জ্ঞানের অধিকারী ব্যক্তি কোনও [[সামাজিক জালকব্যবস্থা]] বা চর্চাকারী সম্প্রদায়ে যোগদান করেন, তখন এই ধরনের জ্ঞান অংশত “[[জ্ঞান করায়ত্তকরণ|করায়ত্ত]]” করা সম্ভব হয়।<ref name=”Goffin” />
দৈনন্দিন কাজকর্মভিত্তিক অব্যক্ত জ্ঞানের কিছু উদাহরণ হল সাইকেল চালানো, পিয়ানো বাজানো, মোটরগাড়ি চালনা, পেরেকে হাতুড়ি মারা,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Engel | first1 = P. J. H. | year = 2008 | title = Tacit knowledge and Visual Expertise in Medical Diagnostic Reasoning: Implications for medical education | journal = Medical Teacher | volume = 30 | issue = 7| pages = e184–e188 | doi = 10.1080/01421590802144260 | pmid = 18777417 | doi-access = free }}</ref> কোনও জটিল ভগ্নচিত্র জোড়া লাগানোর খেলায় (জিগস’ পাজল) সফল হওয়া, কোনও জটিল পরিসংখ্যানিক সমীকরণ ব্যাখ্যা করতে পারা, ইত্যাদি।<ref name=”:0″ />
[[জ্ঞান ব্যবস্থাপনা]] ক্ষেত্রে অব্যক্ত জ্ঞানের ধারণাটি দিয়ে এমন কোনও জ্ঞানকে বোঝায়, যেটিকে সম্পূর্ণরূপে সংকলিত ও গ্রথিত করা সম্ভব নয়। একজন ব্যক্তি ভাষা ছাড়াই অব্যক্ত জ্ঞান অর্জন করতে পারে। যেমন শিক্ষানবিশেরা তাদের ওস্তাদ বা শিক্ষকের সাথে কাজ করতে করতে কেবল ভাষার মাধ্যমেই নয়, বরং পর্যবেক্ষণ, অনুকরণ ও অনুশীলনের মাধ্যমে কারিগরি দক্ষতা শিখতে পারে।
অব্যক্ত জ্ঞান অর্জনের চাবিকাঠি হল [[অভিজ্ঞতা]]। এক ধরনের অংশিদারি অভিজ্ঞতা ব্যতিরেকে ব্যক্তিদের মধ্যে একে অপরের চিন্তা প্রক্রিয়াগুলি ভাগাভাগি করে নেওয়া অত্যন্ত দুরূহ।<ref name=”Lam”>{{cite journal |last1=Lam |first1=Alice |title=Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework |journal=Organization Studies |date=May 2000 |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=487–513 |doi=10.1177/0170840600213001 |s2cid=146466393 }}</ref>
<!–
==Overview==
=== Origin ===
The term ”’tacit knowing”'<!–boldface per [[WP:R#PLA]]–><!– is attributed to [[Michael Polanyi]]’s ”Personal Knowledge” (1958).<ref name=”:3″ /> In his later work, ”The Tacit Dimension” (1966), Polanyi made the assertion that “we can know more than we can tell.”<ref>[[Michael Polanyi|Polanyi, Michael]]. 1966. ”The Tacit Dimension”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 4.</ref> He states not only that there is knowledge that cannot be adequately articulated by [[Verbal intelligence|verbal]] means, but also that all knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge. While this concept made most of its impact on [[philosophy of science]], [[Philosophy of education|education]] and [[knowledge management]]—all fields involving humans—it was also, for Polanyi, a means to show humankind’s evolutionary continuity with animals. Polanyi describes that many animals are creative, some even have [[mental representation]]s, but can only possess tacit knowledge.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Héder |first1=Mihály |last2=Paksi |first2=Daniel |title=Non-Human Knowledge According to Michael Polanyi |journal=Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical |date=2018 |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=50–66 |doi=10.5840/traddisc20184418 |doi-access=free }}</ref> This excludes humans, however, who developed the capability of articulation and therefore can transmit partially explicit knowledge. This relatively modest difference then turns into a big practical advantage, but there is no unexplained evolutionary gap.
==== Terrain ====
(This needs work.)
Tacit knowledge can be divided according to the terrain. Terrains affect the process of changing tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Terrains are of three kinds:
* ”Relational tacit knowledge:” Relational tacit knowledge could be made explicit, but not made explicit for reasons that touch on deep principles that have to do with either the nature or location of knowledge of the way humans are made.
* ”Somatic tacit knowledge:” Somatic tacit knowledge has to do with properties of individuals bodies and brains as physical things. In principle it is possible for it to be explicated as the outcome of research done by human scientists.
* ”Collective tacit knowledge:” Collective tacit knowledge is a kind of knowledge that we do not know how to make explicit and that we cannot envisage how to explicate. It is the domain of knowledge that is located in society – it has to do with the way society is constituted.<ref>{{Cite book |last=M. |first=Collins, Harry |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/871293266 |title=Tacit and explicit knowledge |date=2013 |publisher=The University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-00421-1 |oclc=871293266}}</ref>
==== Embodied knowledge ====
Tacit knowledge has been described as “[[know-how]]” as opposed to “know-what” ([[fact]]s).<ref name=”:2″ /> This distinction between “know-how” and “know-what” is considered to date back to a 1945 paper by [[Gilbert Ryle]] given to the [[Aristotelian Society]] in London.<ref name=”Ryle”>{{cite journal |last1=Ryle |first1=Gilbert |title=Knowing How and Knowing That: The Presidential Address |journal=Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society |date=1945 |volume=46 |pages=1–16 |doi=10.1093/aristotelian/46.1.1 |jstor=4544405 }}</ref> In his paper, Ryle argues against the ([[Intellectualism|intellectualist]]) position that all knowledge is knowledge of [[Proposition]]s (“know-what”), and therefore the view that some knowledge can only be defined as “know-how”. Ryle’s argument has, in some contexts, come to be called “[[Anti-intellectualism|anti-intellectualist]]”. There are further distinctions such as “know-why” (science) or “know-who” (networking).{{Citation needed|date=August 2012}}
Tacit knowledge involves learning and skill but not in a way that can be written down. On this account, knowing-how or “embodied knowledge”<!–boldface per [[WP:R#PLA]]–><!– is characteristic of the expert, who acts, makes judgments, and so forth without explicitly reflecting on the principles or rules involved. The expert works without having a theory of his or her work; he or she just performs skillfully without deliberation or focused attention.<ref name=”Schmidt” /> Embodied knowledge represents a learned capability of a human body’s [[nervous system|nervous]] and [[endocrine system]]s.<ref name=”40Sensky”>{{cite journal |last=Sensky |first=Tom |title=Knowledge Management |journal=Advances in Psychiatric Treatment |year=2002 |volume=8 |issue=5 |pages=387–395 |doi=10.1192/apt.8.5.387 }}</ref>
==Differences from explicit knowledge==
Although it is possible to distinguish conceptually between [[Explicit knowledge|explicit]] and tacit knowledge, they are not separate and discrete in practice.<ref name=”Lam” /> The interaction between these two modes of knowing is vital for the creation of [[Knowledge creation|new knowledge]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Angioni|first1=Giulio|title=Fare, dire, sentire: l’identico e il diverso nelle culture|publisher=Il maestrale|year=2011|isbn=978-88-6429-020-1|pages=26–99|language=it|trans-title=Doing, saying, feeling: the identical and the different in cultures}}</ref>
Tacit knowledge can be distinguished from explicit knowledge in three major areas:<ref name=”:3″>[[Michael Polanyi|Polanyi, Michael]]. 1958. ”Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-67288-3}}.</ref>
* ”Codifiability and mechanism of transferring knowledge”: Explicit knowledge can be codified (for example, ‘can you write it down’ or ‘put it into words’ or ‘draw a picture’), and easily transferred without the knowing subject. In contrast, tacit knowledge is [[Intuition|intuitive]] and unarticulated knowledge that cannot be communicated, understood or used without the ‘knowing subject’. Unlike the transfer of explicit knowledge, the transfer of tacit knowledge requires close interaction and the buildup of shared understanding and trust among them.
* ”Main methods for the acquisition and accumulation”: Explicit knowledge can be generated through [[logical deduction]] and acquired through practical experience in the relevant context. In contrast, tacit knowledge can only be acquired through practical experience in the relevant context.
* ”Potential of aggregation and modes of appropriation”: Explicit knowledge can be aggregated at a single location, stored in objective forms, and [[Appropriation of knowledge|appropriated]] without the participation of the knowing subject. Tacit knowledge, in contrast, is personal and contextual; it is distributed across knowing subjects, and cannot easily be aggregated. The realization of its full potential requires the close involvement and cooperation of the knowing subject.
The process of transforming tacit knowledge into explicit or specifiable knowledge is known as codification, articulation, or specification. The tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be codified, but can only be transmitted via training or gained through personal experience. There is a view against the distinction, where it is believed that all [[propositional knowledge]] (knowledge that) is ultimately reducible to [[practical knowledge]] (knowledge how).<ref>Hetherington, S, (2011) How to Know: A Practicalist Conception of Knowledge, Wiley-Blackwell, {{ISBN|9780470658123}}.{{page needed|date=November 2020}}</ref>
== {{Anchor|Nonaka’s model}}Nonaka–Takeuchi model ==
{{Main|SECI model of knowledge dimensions}}
[[Ikujiro Nonaka]] proposed a model of [[knowledge creation]] that explains how tacit knowledge can be converted to explicit knowledge, both of which can be converted into organisational knowledge.<ref name=”:1″>[[Ikujiro Nonaka|Nonaka, Ikujiro]], and [[Hirotaka Takeuchi]]. 1995. ”[https://books.google.ca/books?id=B-qxrPaU1-MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation]”. New York: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-19-509269-1}}. {{Internet Archive|id=knowledgecreatin00nona|name=Available}} {{Registration required}}.</ref> While introduced by Nonaka in 1990,<ref>[[Ikujiro Nonaka|Nonaka, Ikujiro]]. 1990. ”Management of Knowledge Creation”. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbun-sha.</ref> the model was further developed by [[Hirotaka Takeuchi]] and is thus known as the Nonaka–Takeuchi model.<ref name=”:1″ /><ref>Xu, F. 2013. “The Formation and Development of Ikujiro Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Theory. Pp. 60-76 in ”Towards Organizational Knowledge: The Pioneering Work of Ikujiro Nonaka”, edited by G. von Krogh, et al. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.</ref> In this model, tacit knowledge is presented variously as uncodifiable (“tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be codified”) and codifiable (“transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is known as codification”). This ambiguity is common in the [[knowledge management]] literature.
Assuming that knowledge is created through the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge, the Nonaka–Takeuchi model postulates four different modes of knowledge conversion:<ref name=”:1″ />
# from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge, or ”[[socialization]]”;
# from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, or ”externalization”;
# from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge, or ”[[Combinational logic|combination]]”; and
# from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, or ”[[internalization]]”.
Nonaka’s view may be contrasted with Polanyi’s original view of “tacit knowing”. Polanyi believed that while [[declarative knowledge]] may be needed for acquiring skills, it is unnecessary for using those skills once the novice becomes an expert. Indeed, it does seem to be the case that, as Polanyi argued, when people acquire a skill, they acquire a corresponding understanding that defies articulation.<ref name=”Schmidt” />
==Examples==
* One of the most convincing examples of tacit knowledge is [[face perception|facial recognition]]: one knows a person’s face, and can recognize it among a thousand, indeed a million. Yet, people usually cannot tell how they recognize that face, so most of this cannot be put into words. When one sees a face, they are not conscious about their knowledge of the individual features (eye, nose, mouth), but rather see and recognize the face as a whole.<ref>[[Michael Polanyi|Polanyi, Michael]]. [1966] 1983. ”The Tacit Dimension”. Gloucester: Doubleday & Company Inc. p. 4.</ref>
* Another example of tacit knowledge is the notion of [[language]] itself: it is not possible to [[language learning|learn a language]] just by being taught the rules of [[grammar]]—a [[native-speaker]] picks it up at a young age, almost entirely unaware of the [[formal grammar]] which they may be taught later.
*Other examples are how to ride a bike, how tight to make a bandage, or knowing whether a senior surgeon feels an intern may be ready to learn the intricacies of surgery; this can only be learned through personal experimentation.
* [[Harry M. Collins]] showed that Western laboratories long had difficulties in successfully replicating an experiment that a team led by [[Vladimir Braginsky]] at [[Moscow State University]] had been conducting for 20 years (the experiment was measuring the quality, ”[[Q factor|Q]]”, factors of [[sapphire]]). Western scientists became suspicious of the Russian results and it was only when Russian and Western scientists conducted the measurements collaboratively that the trust was reestablished. Collins argues that laboratory visits enhance the possibility for the transfer of tacit knowledge.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Collins |first1=H. M. |title=Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire |journal=Social Studies of Science |date=February 2001 |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=71–85 |doi=10.1177/030631201031001004 |s2cid=145429576 |url=http://orca.cf.ac.uk/71069/1/wrkgpaper1.pdf }}</ref><ref>Collins, Harry M. 2010. ”Tacit and Explicit Knowledge”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226113807.</ref>
* The [[Bessemer process|Bessemer steel process]] is another example: [[Henry Bessemer]] sold a patent for his advanced [[steelmaking]] process and was subsequently sued by the purchasers after they could not get it to work. In the end, Bessemer set up his own steel company because he knew how to do it, even though he could not convey it to his patent users.<ref>Gordon, J.E. ”The new science of strong materials”. Penguin books.{{page needed|date=November 2020}}</ref>
* When [[Matsushita Corporation|Matsushita]] (now Panasonic) started developing its automatic home [[bread machine|bread-making machine]] in 1985, an early problem was how to mechanize the dough-[[kneading]] process, a process that takes a master baker years of practice to perfect. To learn this tacit knowledge, a member of the software development team, Ikuko Tanaka, decided to volunteer herself as an apprentice to the head baker of the Osaka International Hotel, who was reputed to produce the area’s best bread. After a period of imitation and practice, one day she observed that the baker was not only stretching, but also twisting the dough in a particular fashion (“twisting stretch”), which turned out to be important in the success of his method. The Matsushita home bakery team drew together eleven members from completely different specializations and cultures: product planning, mechanical engineering, control systems, and software development. The “twisting stretch” motion was finally achieved by a prototype machine after a year of iterative experimentation by the engineers and team members working closely together, combining their explicit knowledge. For example, the engineers added ribs to the inside of the dough case in order to hold the dough better as it is being churned. Another team member suggested a method (later patented) to add yeast at a later stage in the process, thereby preventing the yeast from over-fermenting in high temperatures.<ref name=”:1″ />{{Rp|284}}
–>
==আরও দেখুন==
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
* [[সক্রিয়তা তত্ত্ব]]<!– Activity theory]]–>
* [[সংজ্ঞানাত্মক শিক্ষানবিশি]]<!– Cognitive apprenticeship]]–>
* [[ধারণা মানচিত্র]]<!– Concept map]]–>
* [[ঐকমত্যভিত্তিক বাস্তবতা]]<!– Consensus reality]]–>
* [[সিদ্ধান্ত গ্রহণ]]<!– Decision making]]–>
* [[বর্ণনামূলক জ্ঞান]]<!– Descriptive knowledge]]–>
* [[বিক্ষিপ্ত জ্ঞান]]<!– Dispersed knowledge]]–>
* [[অস্পষ্ট ধারণা]]<!– Fuzzy concept]]–>
* [[লুক্কায়িত পাঠক্রম]]<!– Hidden curriculum]]–>
* [[স্বজ্ঞা (জ্ঞান)|স্বজ্ঞা]]<!– Intuition (knowledge)|Intuition]]–>
* [[পরিচিতিজাত জ্ঞান]]<!– Knowledge by acquaintance]]–>
* [[জ্ঞান চিটযুক্তকরণ]]<!– Knowledge tagging]]–>
* [[যৌক্তিক পরিণতি]]<!– Logical consequence]]–>
* ”[[ফ্রোনেসিস]]” (ব্যবহারিক বিচক্ষণতা) <!–Phronesis]]–>
* [[পদ্ধতিগত জ্ঞান]]<!– Procedural knowledge]]–>
* [[পরিস্থিতিজাত জ্ঞান]]<!– Situated knowledge]]–>
* [[অব্যক্ত পূর্বানুমান]]<!– Tacit assumption]]–>
* [[পাঠ্য ও সংলাপ তত্ত্ব]]<!– Text and conversation theory]]–>
* [[দ্বারপ্রান্ত জ্ঞান]]<!– Threshold knowledge]]–>
* [[অব্যক্ত]]<!– Unsaid]]–>
}}
==তথ্যসূত্র==
{{Reflist|30em}}
==আরও পড়ুন==
* [[Giulio Angioni|Angioni, Giulio]]. 2004. “Doing, Thinking, Saying.” Pp. 249–61 in ”Nature Knowledge”, edited by Sanga & Ortalli. New York: Berghahm Books.
*Bao, Y., and S. Zhao. 2004. “[http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/prperman_2004_2_20 MICRO Contracting for Tacit Knowledge: A study of contractual arrangements in international technology transfer].” ”Problems and Perspectives in Management” (2):279–303.
* Brohm, R. 1999. “Bringing Polanyi onto the theatre stage: a study on Polanyi applied to Knowledge Management.” Pp. 57–69 in ”Proceedings of the ISMICK Conference”. The Netherlands: [[Erasmus University Rotterdam]].
*—— 2005. “Polycentric Order in Organizations” (dissertation). [[Erasmus Research Institute of Management]], Erasmus University Rotterdam. {{Hdl|1765/6911}}; ISBN 9789058920959.
*Castillo, Jose. 2002. “A Note on the Concept of Tacit Knowledge.” ”Journal of Management Inquiry” 11(1):46–57. {{Doi|10.1177/1056492602111018}}; {{S2CID|145515948}}.
*[[Harry Collins|Collins, Harry M]]. 2001. “[http://orca.cf.ac.uk/71069/1/wrkgpaper1.pdf Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire].” ”Social Studies of Science” 31(1):71–85. {{Doi|10.1177/030631201031001004}}. {{S2CID|145429576}}.
* —— 2010. ”Tacit and Explicit Knowledge”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226113807.
* [[Malcolm Gladwell|Gladwell, Malcolm]] 2005. ”[[Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking]]”. New York: [[Little, Brown and Company|Little, Brown and Compant]].
* Gourlay, Stephen. 2007. ”Rethinking knowledge management”. Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-71010-3.
*Hodgkin, R. 1991 September 27. “Michael Polanyi – Prophet of life, the universe and everything.” ”Times Higher Educational Supplement”. p. 15.
*[[Ikujiro Nonaka|Nonaka, Ikujiro]]. 1990. ”Management of Knowledge Creation”. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbun-sha.
*Nonaka, Ikujiro, and [[Hirotaka Takeuchi]]. 1995. ”[https://books.google.ca/books?id=B-qxrPaU1-MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation]”. New York: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-19-509269-1}}. {{Internet Archive|id=knowledgecreatin00nona|name=Available}} {{Registration required}}.
* {{cite journal | last1 = Patriotta | first1 = G | year = 2004 | title = Studying organizational knowledge | journal = Knowledge Management Research and Practice | volume = 2 | issue = 1 | pages = 3–12 | doi = 10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500017 | s2cid = 62182682 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.421.1462 }}
* [[Michael Polanyi|Polanyi, Michael]]. 1958. ”Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-67288-3}}.
*—— 1966. ”The Tacit Dimension”. Doubleday & Co.
**”Tacit Knowing,” chapter 1 in ”The Tacit Dimension” (1983 reprint). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
*—— 1997. ”Science, Economics and Philosophy: Selected Papers of Michael Polanyi”, edited with an introduction by R.T. Allen. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
* [[Arthur S. Reber|Reber, Arthur S.]] 1993. ”Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: an essay on the cognitive unconscious”. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-510658-X}}
* Sanders, A. F. 1988. ”Michael Polanyi’s Post-critical Epistemology: A Reconstruction of Some Aspects of ‘Tacit Knowing”’. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
* Smith, Mark K. [2003] 2014. “[https://infed.org/michael-polanyi-and-tacit-knowledge/ Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge].” ”The Encyclopedia of Pedagogy and Informal Education”.
* Tsoukas, H. 2003. “Do we really understand tacit knowledge?” Pp. 411–27 in ”The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management”, edited by Easterby-Smith and Lyles. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
* Wenger, E. 1998. ”Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity”. New York: Cambridge University Press.
* [[Timothy Wilson|Wilson, Timothy D.]] 2002. ”Strangers to ourselves: discovering the adaptive unconscious”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. {{ISBN|0-674-01382-4}}.
{{Knowledge management}}{{Authority control}}
[[Category:জ্ঞান ব্যবস্থাপনা]]
[[Category:সংজ্ঞানাত্মক মনোবিজ্ঞান]]
[[Category:শিখনের মনোবিজ্ঞান]]