What is tacit, uncodified and experiential knowledge?
Tacit and uncodified knowledge are often embedded within action and as such are often unrecognised or unrecognisable; they are also subjective and thus have often been discounted as a ‘viable’ or ‘reliable’ source of knowledge from positivist interpretations. Experiential and uncodified knowledge incorporate tacit knowledge as they are both forms of knowing that are subjective and often completed without thinking, i.e. as part of a daily routine or action that is regularly undertaken (often without reflection.) Anning (2001) goes onto suggest that this type of perception often remains unidentified as it is not ‘codified and stored in publications, libraries, databases and so on, and given foundational status by incorporation into examinations and publications’ (p.6). It is only in the more recent literature on learning and knowledge that the concepts of experiential, tacit and uncodified knowledge have emerged at all.
J. Ursin (2000,p.2) defines different types of knowledge; firstly, information, which is knowledge that can be seen as ‘objective’ and ‘fragmented’- the positivist perception of ‘fact.’ ‘Skill or know-how is embedded in the individual, as they are able to behave intentionally in order to achieve a certain result. This kind of knowledge is often referred to as tacit knowledge.’ I would also suggest that this definition includes experiential knowledge as the implication in Ursin’s writing is that for knowledge to become ‘embedded’ it must be experienced and repeated, a form of learning from one’s own mistakes and the actions of others.
‘In the process of socialisation the key element of acquiring tacit knowledge is experience, i.e. this socialisation process happens through observation, imitation, practice and shared experience. An individual can acquire tacit knowledge directly from others without using language’ (Ursin, 2000,p.4).
Ursin continues this practice further to distinguish between the subjectivity of tacit knowledge and the concept of objective explicit knowledge and how these concepts are internalised or externalised, combined or socialised.
Nonaka-Takeuchi learning cycle (SECI-model) from Ursin, 2000, p.3.
Hellgren, (1988) notes another important aspect of this type of knowledge, which will incorporate the use of focus groups to evoke this knowledge due to the fact that people often learn more from their experiences than they are able to vocalise. For example learning to drive is often thought as an experiential process, however, one does not only gain driving experience, but also respect for other road users, judging distances etc. which are only recognised as skills through reflection, or observation from an outsider such as in focus group research,
‘Another factor that restricts the value of experience is the fact that everybody is not so aware of the meaning of their experience. Their approach is not analytic in that it would produce an organised and systematic body of knowledge of what they have experienced’ (p.95)
Hellgren is again commenting on the subjectivity of this type of knowledge, but I would warn that viewing only knowledge that is organised and systematic as important would be to the detriment of any research project, quantitative or qualitative.
How do focus groups give rise to this knowledge?
A. Johnson (1996) believes that using ‘radical focus groups’ inevitably give rise to tacit and experiential knowledge. The change in the type of knowledge that is gained has occurred due to the change in methodology. Previously focus groups were conducted under the methodology of marketing and advertising- within the paradigms of positivism, behaviourism and empiricism, viewing the participants as passive objects. Johnson (1996) believes that this shift has transpired due to the ‘radical social movements’ emerging after 1968, which gave rise to new ‘politics of knowledge’ (p.521). I would suggest that the emergence of postmodernist thought has led to this increased acceptance of previously undervalued forms of learning, through the acknowledgement of multiple view points.
Kitzinger and Barbour (1999) note that within theses radical focus groups, the researcher realises opinions that are created through experience and these experiences are then privileged over the desires of the moderator. Focus groups are so effective in achieving this aim due to the nature of their composition.
‘Crucially, focus groups are distinguished from the broader category of group interviews by the explicit use of group interaction to generate data. Instead of asking questions of each person in turn, focus group researchers encourage participants to talk to one another’ (Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999, p.4).
Kitzinger and Barbour observe that focus groups develop this tacit knowledge further and are able to place these opinions within the ‘weltanschaung (world view)’ (p.521) of the individuals. Whereas previous focus group research methodology would simply aim to gain opinions or information on a product, new methodologies of social work etc. enable this research to gain insights into the wider landscape of individual narratives and life stories. Johnson (1996) also observes that the skill of the researcher is vital in being able to perceive this knowledge, as often tacit knowledge is perceived as being understandable only by those within the hermeneutic circle of the participants (p.521).
Stewart and Shandasani (1990) agree that for focus groups to succeed in extracting tacit, uncodified and experiential knowledge the skill and knowledge of the moderator is an essential factor. From the literature on group dynamics, Stewart and Shandasani (1990) note that participants comfort zones are delimited by intrapersonal, interpersonal and environmental factors. Intrapersonal factors are demographic, physical and personality characteristics that affect the way that participants will behave in group situations.
‘A lively, interesting discussion tends to build a sense of cohesiveness. Equally important, the sharing of experiences and recognition that others have had similar experiences add to the cohesiveness of the group. It is for this reason that focus group moderators will spend time early in the group discussion seeking common experiences among group members before moving on to more controversial topics’ (p.42).
Building this sense of comfort and security is fundamental in ensuring the acquisition of different types of knowledge. The facilitator must also be aware of the participants’ perceptions of each other, ‘Certain participants, however, may be perceived to have expert power because of their education, training, and/or general experience’ (ibid.p.44). This may lead to a certain amount of intimidation that needs to be overcome to obtain valuable knowledge from other individuals in the group. The moderator must also be sensitive to the non-verbal communication, such as ‘gazing and eye contact.’ Stewart and Shandasani (1990) note that there are
‘3 primary functions of looking within the interpersonal interaction situation (1) to express interpersonal attitudes such as friendship, agreement or liking; (2) to collect information about other persons, such as how they are responding to a particular point of view; and (3) to regulate and synchronize dyactic conversations’ (p.44).
These are actions, which the researcher not only desires to recognise among the participants, but can also use to encourage participation and self-assurance.
Focus groups were used in the research of O’Brien into gay and bisexual attitudes towards AIDS and other sexual diseases. She decided on this method to ensure that she would be able to learn and reproduce the vocabulary of these groups to ensure the message of safe sex was communicated in an effective and inoffensive manner.
‘O’Brien used the tacit knowledge opened up by the focus group discussions to produce fresh hypotheses concerning the significance of verbal and non-verbal modes of communication for the practice of safe sex.’ (A. Johnson, 1996 p.522)
O’Brien noted that the information gathered transpired as a result of ‘meaningful multilateral conversations,’ which although initiated by the controlled bilateral questions of the researcher, developed independently of her own aims for the direction of the discussion. Johnson (1990) observes that the purpose of social science research using this methodology is to then ‘foster interchange between tacit, common sense or everyday knowledge, and scientific knowledge’ (p.527). This can arise through a recognition concerning the production of knowledge; ‘our knowledge is simultaneously the close up tacit knowledge inherited from our social locales, and bits of narrow specialist occupational/ scientific knowledge’ (ibid.p.527)
Michell (1999) conducted a series of focus groups to investigate the ‘pecking orders’ present in the group dynamics of young people. Thus she demonstrated that where the participants of focus groups were not afforded the anonymity of not meeting together after the group, one was provided mainly with what she refers to as ‘well rehearsed public knowledge’ (p.36). Michell then used the tacit information she gained, such as which voices were louder, who was made fun of, who was supported, to display how social exchanges reinforced the tacit, uncodified hierarchies within the school system she researched. Focus groups were so effective in gaining this information, as she was able to recreate the social interactions she wished to observe in a virtually non-artificial way.
Kitzinger and Farquhar (1999) note that focus groups are particularly effective in gaining access to tacit information during sensitive moments within the discussion, which traditional literature on focus groups suggested the researcher should avoid,
‘When groups held or developed difficult moments this could lead to in-depth exploration of key issues. This, in turn, could lead to individuals, or the group as a whole, coming to articulate previously suppressed views, shift opinions or begin to present their own experiences in a new light’ (p.164).
Focus groups, thus explore how experiences are uttered and censored by individuals within the groups and the group as a whole. Again, this supports Michell’s observations on how social groups and their interactions can reinforce group norms; I will aim to demonstrate how focus groups can then be used to transform these ‘norms.’ This effect of group pressure on the production of knowledge establishes how focus groups can be used to ‘challenge the [positivist] notion that opinions are attributes of subjects at all rather than utterances produced in specific situations’ (Kitzinger and Farquhar, p.4)
How do focus groups compare to other methods?
Krueger (1994) and Stewart and Shandasani (1990) both draw direct comparisons between the use of focus groups and interviews- both structured, unstructured and in-depth. Their main point of agreement lay in what Stewart and Shandasani (1990) refer to as a ‘sense of shared experience’ (p.28) which then led to the expression of increased information of all types, but specifically that which was experiential or sensitive,
‘If these questions were asked in an individual interview the respondent could probably tell you everything he or she knows about the subject in just a few minutes. However, when these questions are placed in a group environment the discussion can last several hours’ (Krueger, 1994, p.54).
Thus, the researcher does not simply obtain a life history, or narrative tale, but an interactive process of the declaration and formulation of experiential knowledge and the tacit information that, as I have demonstrated, accompanies it. It is not only the ‘breadth’ of the research that is increased, but also the depth of the information accrued. Stewart and Shandasani (1990) develop this further to suggest that the researcher’s role, incorporated into the group atmosphere, can vary the type of experiential knowledge that was manifested and the tacit differences in this expression.
‘A mere demonstration of empathy and willingness to learn was sufficient to elicit focus group participants’ motivations for shoplifting. In comparison, when conducting a series of in-depth interviews on impulse buying, it often was difficult to break down the rationality or defensive element in respondents’ recollections of their impulsive experiences’ (Stewart and Shandasani, 1990, p.28).
Focus groups as a feminist research method.
A. Bryman (2001) believes that feminist researchers have adopted focus groups, as they are not an unnatural way of gathering information, they are part of the social interaction; focus groups are themselves a social context. In this area of research existing groups are often used as choosing members from naturally occurring groups reduces the artificiality of research further. Feminist researchers seek to ‘derive understandings that chime with the ‘lived experience’ of women.’ (p.348). Feminist methods seek to avoid decontextualisation and researchers are constantly searching for new methods that are not exploitative of power relations.
‘For a group like lower-socio-economic-class women of colour, focus groups constitute a relatively rare opportunity for them to ‘empower themselves by making sense of their experience of vulnerability and subjugation’ (Bryman, 2001, p.348).
Wilkinson (1999) also offers a view as to why do focus groups appeal to feminist researchers and similarly these focus upon the relations of power and the role of the individual within the social context. Wilkinson also notes that focus groups have been adopted as a feminist research method due to their ability to educate as well as supply information,
‘They [focus groups] avoid focusing on the individual devoid of social context, or separate from interactions with others. Second, focus groups are a relatively non-hierarchical method; that is they shift the balance of power away from the researcher towards the research participants. Other advantages of focus groups for feminist research include: their use of minority groups; their potential as a tool for action research; and their value as a form of ‘consciousness-raising’ (p.64).
Feminists view focus groups themselves as a social context due to the fact that the information is only accessible due to the social interaction. The meanings, which are generated, occur only due to the interplay between participants and within the groups meanings are constantly negotiated and reproduced as arguments arise and points of view are challenged. The researcher is not only able to gather information on the research topic, but also observe how this information or set of meanings or opinions is created socially. Wilkinson (1999) notes that this is so prominent in focus groups as participants ‘speak in their own voice, to express their own thoughts and feelings, and to determine their own agendas’ (p.64).
Krueger (1994) notes that it is often unsuccessful to mix genders in focus groups due to the behaviours of men and women in social groups, particularly if the topic of the group is experienced differently by each gender. Krueger notes the ‘peacock effect’ of mixed sex groups where men will often speak with more authority and regularity, at the expense of interaction from the women in the focus group. There is also the possibility that the focus may move to gender disagreements rather than the topic of discussion. Stewart and Shandasani (1990) note that this possibility is prevalent due to the lifelong socialisation of men and women into different roles; as such it is itself a form of embedded, tacit knowledge of behaviours.
‘Research on sex differences in personality suggest that men are more aggressive than women, women conform more to group pressure than men; women are more sensitive and better able to interpret emotions than men; women are more anxious than men; and men are more confident about their abilities than women.’ (p.37).
Stewart and Shandasani (1990) also suggest that using the same participants, in both mixed and same sex groups will provide diverse information making full use of focus groups as a research tool; studying not only what the participants know, but also the interaction between genders and which meanings are privileged by the different sexes.
Farquhar (with R. Das) (1999) suggest that their use of focus groups to carry out research on lesbian sexual and general health helped to empower the participants through the support networks generated in the group situations, providing the researchers with tacit and experiential knowledge on the relations between women and gendered group dynamics. More importantly, they discovered that much of the tacit or incidental knowledge they acquired occurred only as a result of the participant interaction, not through the questions of the interviewer; in a one-to-one situation, much of this valuable data would have been lost or never realised. Wilkinson (1999) supports the use of focus groups to empower through gaining access to uncodified information and continues to suggest that in the hands of women, focus groups can also have a ‘revolutionary’ power,
‘Through meeting together with others and sharing experience, and through realising group commonalities in what had previously been considered individual and personal problems, women will develop a clearer sense of the social and political processes through which their experiences are constructed- and perhaps also a desire to organize against them’ (p.75).
Thus, it is not only the researcher who becomes aware of experiential knowledge, but participants become conscious of the importance and value of their own learning and its construction.
Focus group research on ethnic minorities.
Many social groups lie outside of the categories of codified and institutionalised knowledge. Similar to feminist concerns, ethnic groups are often isolated and marginalized from ‘mainstream,’ published information.
‘Social research has not done well in reaching people who are isolated by the daily exhausting struggles for survival, services and dignity- people who will not respond to surveys or whose experiences, insights and feelings lie outside of data survey methods’ (Plaut in Wilkinson, 1999, p.74)
Krueger (1994) notes that as a result of this marginalisation, many isolated groups have been cautious of outsiders, especially those who appear, at least, to be in positions of power- such as the social researcher; resistance may also be encountered as these groups feel that those who lie outside of their sphere of experience are not qualified to research it. Thus, Krueger also notes that in these situations it is often beneficial to have a moderator who has similar characteristics to the research participants- the emphasis being on participation and collaboration rather than parties as research subjects.
Farquhar (with Das) (1999) note that Black women’s refusal take part in a White female researcher’s project may not only be due to suspicion and lack of experience, but also as a symbolic resistance to ‘White institutional power’ and through fear that the information may be used as a tool of oppression and control once it has been turned over to the influence of White researchers. Farquhar observes that through using focus groups, the researcher not only gains access to tacit information, but also information that has previously been withheld or overlooked.
‘Group methods can make an important contribution to sensitive research. They can be helpful in facilitating access to particularly sensitive research populations, and giving voice to sections of the community who frequently remain unheard… by bringing discussion of sensitive topics into a relatively public arena, they may open up new possibilities for the analysis of the social construction of sensitivity, and the identification and illumination of such group norms and taboos’ (p.62).
Conclusion:
Hellgren (1988) notes that focus groups not only give rise to tacit, uncodified and experiential knowledge, but also allow the researcher to learn the vocabulary the participants use to describe their own experiences. This knowledge of terminology can then inform other research methods aimed at the demographic, gender, ethnic etc. group.
‘With this information, the investigator can design a questionnaire using words and phrases to enhance respondents’ understanding and hence, to enhance data quality’ (p.523).
The presence of official research into the areas of tacit and uncodified knowledge can then lead to ‘institutionalising’ this type of knowledge and increase the recognition and inclusion in research of those groups for whom uncodified knowledge is most poignant.
The fact that group dynamics exist and that conversations within the group occur at all demonstrate the groups tacit and experiential knowledge of how to behave within a group situation and how to conduct a conversation, which itself has an unwritten set of rules, that prevents participants from continually talking over each other and constantly interrupting. Thus, even within the traditional literature there was a tacit acceptance of experiential knowledge that prevented them from briefing participants on how to perform within the group. I perceive focus groups as being such an effective and tolerant research method as they do not simply aim to elicit an accepted and rigid set of facts, but seek to observe an organic and developing expression and creation of experiential opinions.
References:
A. Anning (2001), ‘Knowing who I am and what I know:developing new versions of professional knowledge in integrated service settings,’ from www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001877.htm
R.S. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: politics, theory and practice (London, Sage) including essays:
R.S. Barbour and J. Kitzinger, ‘Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups.’
C. Farquhar (with R. Das), ‘Are focus groups suitable for sensitive topics?’
J. Kitzinger and C. Farquhar, ‘The analytical potential of ‘sensitive moments’ in focus group discussions.’
L. Michell, ‘Combining focus groups and interviews: telling how it is; telling how it feels.’
S. Wilkinson, ‘How useful are focus groups in feminist research?’
A. Bryman (2001), Social Research Methods (Oxford, Oxford University Press)
Cohen and Garett (1999), ‘Breaking the rules: A group perspective on focus group research,’ British Journal of Social Work vol.29
T.L. Greenbaum (1998), The handbook for Focus Group Research (London, Sage)
P. Hellgren (1998), ‘Theoretical and Experiential Knowledge in Teacher Education,’ European Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 11 No.s 2-3
A. Johnson (1996), ‘It’s good to talk’ The Sociological Review vol.44
R.A. Krueger (1994), Focus Groups 2nd Edition. A Practical Guide for Applied Research (London, Sage)
S. Pearce (1995), ‘Needs assessment: constructing tacit knowledge from practice,’ International Journal of Lifelong Education Vol. 14 no. 5
D. Stewart and P. Shandasani (1990), Focus Groups. Theory and Practice (London, Sage)
J. Ursin (2000), ‘Group Synamics in the Production of New Knowledge- a Theoretical Framework’ from www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001609.htm
J.P. Wilson (1999), Human Resource Development (London, Kogan Page)