seen as general knowledge and technical knowledge is usually specific. Nonaka concentrates more on organization dynamics than on individual activities in knowledge creation.
Marwick (2001) follows Nonaka’s definitions. Explicit knowledge is represented by some artifact, such as a document or a video, which has typically been created with the goal of communicating with another person. Tacit knowledge is what the knower knows, which is derived from experience and embodies beliefs and values. Tacit knowledge is actionable knowledge and therefore the most valuable. Furthermore, tacit knowledge is the most important basis for the generation of new knowledge, that is, according to Nonaka: “the key to knowledge creation lies in the mobilization and conversion of tacit knowledge.” Both forms of knowledge are important for organizational effectiveness. (Marwick, 2001. 814)
Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s model of knowledge creation recognizes two kinds of knowledge, tacit and explicit. Although its components are not spelled out, tacit knowledge would appear to include five of the six kinds of personal knowledge discussed latter, the exception being statable knowledge. Explicit knowledge comprises statable knowledge and conceptual artifacts, thus, as is characteristic of folk theory of mind, making no distinction between them. Nonaka and Takeuchi treat knowledge in the individual mind as primary. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 6)
Bereiter criticizes Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s model of knowledge creation. Model falls short on four counts: 1) Creativity, 2) Understanding, 3) Knowledge work, and 4) Collaborative knowledge building. Although model holds that new knowledge is always created in individual minds, it does not explain how minds produce original ideas and novel solutions. Although the model deals with ways that knowledge gets from person to person, it offers nothing about understanding and depth of understanding. Depth of understanding is a distinguishing characteristic of expertise in knowledge- based, and productivity creativity presupposes expertise. The knowledge creation model has little to say about the knowledge work. Although cooperation and teamwork are praised, the idea of cooperating in the creation of knowledge never comes to life in Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theorizing. The problem in the model is not so much missing concepts as missing perspectives on those concepts. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 6)
Nonaka and Takeuchi treat knowledge as something that can only come about within the individual mind. This is because that is where folk theory locates knowledge. Until there is a way for your co- workers to get inside your brain and fiddle with the synapses, there is never going to be such a thing as the collaborative creation of knowledge, according to folk understanding. But if you can conceive of knowledge as consisting of conceptual artefacts, then you can imagine something like a knowledge assembly line, with theories, designs, and so on moving along it, being worked on by