4.6 Article

The role of tacit knowledge in the work context of nursing

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 687-695

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01798.x

关键词

tacit knowledge; experience-guided working; critical situation; explication; nursing

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims of the study. Previous research on the role of tacit knowledge is ambiguous Some studies show the superiority of expertise, while other studies found experts would not be better than laymen. This paper aims at clarifying the contribution of tacit knowledge to expertise in the domain of nursing. Background. Two important concepts for dealing with critical situations are outlined - tacit knowledge and experience-guided working. The framework of tacit knowledge and experience-guided working can contribute to an explanation of the ambiguous results. Tacit knowledge is acquired implicitly in the course of working and is therefore not subject to reflection. For this reason it can contain erroneous or problematic contents. Methods. A method for the explication of tacit knowledge was developed and a laboratory study with 16 experienced nurses conducted. In the laboratory study the nurses had to deal with a critical nursing situation that was developed in co-operation with nursing experts. The explicit knowledge of the nurses was tested before the laboratory study. Results. No systematic differences in explicit knowledge could he observed, i.e. differences in performance could not he attributed to this knowledge mode. Results from multidimensional scaling procedures illustrate differences in the tacit knowledge of nurses who successfully accomplished the critical situation and those who did not. Conclusions. The findings ore in line with the assumption that experience-guided working is of the utmost importance for dealing with critical situations. Consequences of these results for nursing and person-related services in general are discussed and the aim of future research is outlined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据