Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/70347
|
| Title: | 內隱及外顯知識相對性之研究--認知基模觀點
A Study of the Relativity of Tacit Knowledge and Explicit Knowledge: the Perspectives of Cognitive Schema |
| Authors: | 陳世倫
Chen, Shi Lun |
| Contributors: | 吳豐祥
Wu, Feng Shang
陳世倫
Chen, Shi Lun |
| Keywords: | 內隱知識
外顯知識
知識相對性
工業設計
個人因素
認知基模
Tacit knowledge
Explicit knowledge
The relativity of knowledge
Industrial design
Personal factors
Cognitive schema |
| Date: | 2013 |
| Issue Date: | 2014-10-01 13:47:09 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 中文摘要
「知識」在二十一世紀扮演了關鍵角色(Drucker, 2000)。除了傳統的資本、土地、勞力等生產要素的投入，企業必須進行知識管理以建構企業本身的核心知識以創造競爭優勢。而在知識管理中，內隱知識對企業的知識建構上扮演關鍵的角色，內隱知識不斷讓企業創新，內隱知識也是維持員工或企業組織生產力與工作能力之競爭優勢的主要因子(Smith & Parr, 2000)。另外一方面，知識管理領域的學者，也藉由內隱性知識與外顯性知識的概念與差別，發展出知識管理與經營的相關模式（例如：Nonaka, 1994; Hansen, Nohria &Tierney, 1999等）。若進一步審視，則吾人可以理解到這些研究者大都把知識視為絕對的概念，也就是說知識內隱性/外顯性的高低，對每一個人都是一樣的。
然而，本研究認為前述的假設在很多情況下可能是不恰當的，例如，有些被認為是內隱性高的知識，對某些人來說或許僅是外顯性知識而已。因此，本研究提出「知識相對性」的概念，強調「內隱知識在不同個人[知識管理者]之間是存在差異的」，藉由認知心理學領域的認知基模之觀點來探討個人因素(人格特質、專業背景及認知「基模」[個人所經驗與累積的知識系統]等)是否影響到內隱/外顯知識認知上的差異，並提出假設進行驗證。本研究所採用的研究方法是以量化分析為主，質化分析為輔，研究對象為學生。研究內容上選擇「工業設計」為知識標的，主要考量這個領域有其專業性，同時，對一般人來說又不會太艱澀與難接近。本研究先請一位工業設計學者錄製一段有關工業設計與新產品開發的錄影帶（同時含有「較難」（較內隱）與「較易」（較外顯）的設計知識）。進行施測時先播放給受試者（包括有工業設計背景與非工設背景者）看，接著再請受試者填答問卷。另外，為了使研究內容更加完整並增加對於受試者認知上的瞭解，本研究也進行了專家的訪談與部分受試者的焦點訪談。
本研究在問卷調查上共回收191份問卷，在最後確認後總計得到有效問卷147份，有效問卷回收率為77%。整合量化與質化的分析結果後，本研究初步得到了以下的結論：
1.高認知基模的人對內隱知識理解程度比低認知基模的人高。
2.個人因素(專業背景、認知基模)之差異性對外顯知識的認知無顯著差異。
3.擅於社交的人格特質對於外顯知識有較高的認知能力。
4.設計背景相較於非設計背景的人對內隱知識的認知無顯著差異。
5.人格特質對內隱知識的認知沒有顯著關聯。
6.設計專家比設計背景與非設計背景的人擁有更多設計的內隱知識；設計背景的人比非設計背景的人擁有更多設計的內隱知識。
本研究最後並提出理論上的貢獻、實務上與後續研究上的建議。
關鍵字：內隱知識、外顯知識、知識相對性、工業設計、個人因素、認知基模
Abstract
"Knowledge" plays a key role in the twenty-first century (Drucker, 2000). In addition to traditional capital, land, labor and other production factors, companies must effectively manage their business knowledge in order to build core competences. Furthermore, tacit knowledge is one of the key elements for enterprises to improve organizational productivity and to create competitive advantage (Smith & Parr, 2000). On the other hand, many scholars and researchers try to establish the knowledge management models based on the levels and differences of knowledge tacitness and explicitmess. If we look those models in details, we can find that most of the KM researchers conceptualize knowledge attributes in terms of “absolute” way, i.e., in their minds, the degree of knowledge tacitness is the same to everyone.
Nevertheless, the study argues that the aforementioned assumptions might not be correct in many cases. For example, some recognized tacit knowledge might be simply viewed as explicit one, from the viewpoints of some experts. Therefore, this research proposes a concept of “the relativity of knowledge” and emphasizes “the level of knowledge tacitness might be various from different people’s minds”. Based on the perspectives of cognitive schema in psychology, this study explores whether the personal factors (personality traits, professional background and cognitive schema) will affects the cognitive differences in tacit and explicit knowledge and draws several hypotheses for further verification through quantitative and qualitative analysis. The investigation selects college students as experimental subjects. The field of industrial design is chosen because it is embeded with professionalism. Menwhile, it is also accessible to most of people without design background. The study firstly invite a professor of industrial design to make a video tape about industrial design and new product development, with content including both “more difficult” (tacit) and “easier” (explicit) design knowledge. The participants are asked to watch the 23-minute tape first and then to complete the questionnair.
With a total number of 191 questionnaires collected, this study eventually obtains 147 valid questionnaires. The effective response rate is 77%. Through the integration of quantitative and qualitative analysis, the preliminary conclusions of this study are drawn as follows:
1.The people with higher cognitive schema could understand tacit knowledge better than those with lower one.
2.The differences of personal factors (professional background, cognitive schema) do not show significant differences in cognition of explicit knowledge.
3.The people with better social personality traits show higher cognitive abilities in explicit knowledge than those with worse ones.
4.In the cognition of tacit knowledge, no significant differences between design background and non-design background persons could be found.
5.The personality trait is not significantly associated with the cognition of tacit knowledge.
6.Design experts own more tacit knowledge than those non-experts with design background and non-design background; In turn, those non-experts with design background own more tacit knowledge than those with non-design background.
The study finally addresses the contribution of this research in academia and the suggestions to practitioners and follow-on researchers.
Keywords: Tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge, the relativity of knowledge, industrial design, personal factors, cognitive schema |
| Reference: | 英文文獻
1.Anderson, J. A. (1983). Cognitive and Psychological Computation with Neural Models. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC- 1 3(5), 799-815.
2.Anderson, J. R. & Matessa, M. (1990). A Rational Analysis of Categorization. Paper Presented at the ML.
3.Anderson, John R. (1983). A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261-295.
4.Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J. & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of Age at Entry, Knowledge Intensity, and Imitability on International Growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909-924.
5.Barney, J. B. (1986). Types of Competition and the Theory of Strategy: Toward an Integrative Framework. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 791-800.
6.Blanchard-Fields, F. (1989). Everyday Reasoning and Adult Development from an Attributional Framework. Everyday Problem Solving: Theory and Applications. New York: Praeger.
7.Bransford, J. D. & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Some Investigations of Comprehension and Recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
8.Costa, P. T. & McCrae R. R. (1992). The Introduction of the Five-Factor Model and Its Application. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
9.Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality Stability and Its Implications for Clinical Psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 407-423.
10.David, V. D. & Stanley, B. S. (1989). Personality and Job Performance: Evidence of Incremental Validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25-36.
11.Davies, J. G. (1992). Conceptual Data Modeling in Database Design: Similarity and Differences between Expert and Novice Designers. Man-Machine Studies, 37, 83-101.
12.Dooling, D. J. & Mullet, R. L. (1973). Locus of Thematic Effects in Retention of Prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 404-406.
13.Drucker, P. F. (2000). Managing Knowledge Means Managing Oneself. Leader to Leader, 16(2), 8-10.
14.Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of Character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179-185.
15.Gatewood, R. D. & Field, H. S. (1998). Human Resource Selection (4th). Fort Worth: Dryden Press.
16.Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (2000). Managing People. Harvard Business Review Paperback.
17.Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and Individual Differences: The Search for Universals in Personality Lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 2, 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.Hansen, Morten T., Nohria, Nitin & Tierney, Thomas (1999). What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Review, 77, March-April, 1-16.
19.Harem, T., Krogh, G. V. & Roos, J. (1996). Knowledge-Based Strategic Change: Managing Knowledge-Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition, SAGE Publications, 47-58.
20.Hedlund, G. (1994). A Model of Knowledge Management and the N‐form Corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 73-90.
21.Kim, M. H., Kim, Y. S., Lee, H. S. & Park, J. A. (2007). An Underlying Cognitive Aspect of Design Creativity: Limited Commitment Mode Control Strategy. Design Studies, 28, 585-604.
22.Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 625-625.
23.Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980). Adaptive Dimensions of Adult Cognition. Transitions of Aging, 3-26.
24.Lord, M. D, & Ranft, A. L. (2000). Organizational Learning about New International Markets: Exploring the Internal Transfer of Local Market knowledge. Journal of International Business Studies, 573-589.
25.Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.McCrae R. R., Costa P. T. & Busch C. M. (1986), Evaluating Comprehensiveness in Personality Systems: The California Q-set and the Five-Factor Model, Journal of Personality, 54, 430-446.
27.Moates, D. R. & Schumacher, G. M. (1980). An Introduction to Cognitive Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
28.Newman, W. L. (1994). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
29.Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization Science, 15(1), pp.14-37.
30.Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation? New York: Oxford University Press.
31.Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.
32.O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998). If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification and Transfer of Internal Best Practice, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.
33.Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
34.Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books.
35.Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Paul.
37.Popovic, A. (2004). Expertise Development in Product Design – Strategic and Domain-Specific Knowledge Connections. Design Studies, 25, 527-545.
38.Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P. & Finkelstein, S. (1996). Leveraging intellect. The Academy of Management Executive, 10(3), 7-27.
39.Riegel, K. F. (1973). Dialectic Operations: The Final Period of Cognitive Development. Human Development, 16(5), 346-370.
40.Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogical Processes in Learning. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 335-359.
41.Sarvary, S. (1999). Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting Industry, California Management Review, Vol.41, No.2.
42.Shin, M., Holden T., and Schmidt R. A., (2001). From Knowledge Theory to Management Practice: Towards and Integrated Approach, Information Processing and Management, 37, 335-355.
43.Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal Reasoning: The Relativistic Stage. Beyond Formal Operations, 1, 298-325.
44.Smith, G. V., & Parr, R. L. (2000). Valuation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets: Wiley Chichester.
45.Wagner, R. K. & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Tacit Knowledge in Managerial Success, Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(4), 301-312.
46.Weggeman, M. (1997). Organiseren Met Kennis, Scriptum Management,
Schiedam NL.
47.Weiner, B. (1989). 動機和情緒的歸因理論，福建: 福建教育出版社.
48.Wickens, C., Kramer, A., Vanasse, L., & Donchin, E. (1983). Performance of Concurrent Tasks: A Psychophysiological Analysis of the Reciprocity of Information-Processing Resources. Science, 221(4615), 1080-1082.
49.Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge, Sloan Management Review, Summer, 45-57.
51.Zander, U. & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76-92.
中文文獻
1.方秋雅，(2010)，教師專業成長需求分析之研究-以苗栗縣竹興國民小學為例，玄奘大學公共事務管理學系碩士在職專班-研究計畫書
2.江錦樺，(2001)，人格特質與組織文化之適應性對工作績效之影響，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
3.何俊亨，(1997)，設計思考的搜尋策略模型──專家與生手的差異，未出版之碩士論文，新竹：國立交通大學應用藝術研究所。
4.李瑪莉(2002)，國民小學知識管理與教師專業成長關係之研究，國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文。
5.車文博，(1998)。《西方心理學史》。浙江：浙江教育出版社。
6.吳豐祥、謝慶龍 (2002)，技術知識特質對知識管理作為的影響之實證研究，知識經濟與科技創造力培育國際研討會，台北。
7.林文傑，(2008)，基模理論探討設計思維之研究──以專家與生手差異為例，未出版之碩士論文，台北：國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所。
8.林淑儀，(2009)，屏東縣國民小學教師專業成長之研究，國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所碩士論文。
9.邱皓政，(2008)。《量化研究法二：統計原理與分析技術》。臺北市 : 雙葉。
10.梁秀娟，(2010)。心理學原理在英語教學中的應用。齊齊哈爾大學學報: 哲學社會科學版(1)， F0003-F0003。
11.陳立季，(2001)，建築設計之生手與專家使用SEED-Layout之設計行為模式解析，未出版之碩士論文，台北：國立台灣科技大學建築研究所。
12.黃正明，(2005)，研發人員人格特質對生涯發展方向選擇之影響-以資訊通訊產業為例，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
13.勤業管理顧問公司(Arthur Andersen Business Consulting)著，許史金譯(2001)，知識管理推行實務，台北市，商周。
14.榮泰生，(2006)。《SPSS與研究方法》。臺北市 : 五南。
15.鄭麗玉，(1993)，認知心理學──理論與應用，台北：五南。
16.盧盛忠、余凱成、徐昶、錢冰鴻，(1997)，組織行為學──理論與實務，台北：五南。
17.薛稚蓁，(2011)，我國外商藥廠的知識管理活動與知識管理影響因素之研究，國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。
18.魏建忠，(2001)，綜合高中教師專業成長與學校效能關係之研究，國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文。
19.Hubel, V. & Lussow D. 著、張建成譯，(1994)，基本設計概論，台北，六合出版社。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
101359038
102 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101359038 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 903801.pdf | 2008Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 822 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
