Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, B.
Right arrow Articles by Lundvall, B.-A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B41 - Economic Methodology
Right arrow D83 - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 11, Number 2, pp. 245-262
© 2002 Oxford University Press

Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge?

Björn Johnson, Edward Lorenz and Bengt-Åke Lundvall

B. Johnson: Aalborg University
E. Lorenz: Centre d'Etudes de l'Emploi
Bengt-Åke Lundvall: Aalborg University

Abstract

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ind Corp ChangeHome page
M. Balconi, A. Pozzali, and R. Viale
The "codification debate" revisited: a conceptual framework to analyze the role of tacit knowledge in economics
Ind. Corp. Change, October 1, 2007; 16(5): 823 - 849.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ind Corp ChangeHome page
L. Hakanson
Creating knowledge: the power and logic of articulation
Ind. Corp. Change, March 24, 2007; (2007) dtl033v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 OrganizationHome page
S. A. Tywoniak
Knowledge in Four Deformation Dimensions
Organization, January 1, 2007; 14(1): 53 - 76.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.