The workshop is designed to enhance understanding of tacit knowing diffusion. Its goals are twofold. Primarily, it presents a method to facilitate tacit knowing diffusion. The method was developed within a social work context where it had been successfully implemented. Currently, the author is concerned with the consequent question of the method’s robustness within intercultural settings. Secondarily, the workshop introduces research in progress. The research goal was to develop a method to create understanding for experts’ tacit knowing on a purely verbal basis, i.e., from their narrations. For the diffusion of tacit knowing, most researchers strongly recommend co-practice between an expert (who already possesses tacit knowing) and a learner (who wishes to build tacit knowing). However, in some settings, co-practice is not possible and chances are limited to ex-post narrations. Imagine colleagues discussing successfully mastered episodes. Here, the problem of tacit knowing applies in its complete harshness and proper theoretical recommendations have still been developed. Theory ought to answer two questions: How do people make sense of the behaviour of other people, and of expertise in particular? And, secondly, could this perception be supported by an appropriate learning setting? Answers consist of two steps: Firstly, the core of expertise needs defining. Polanyi argues it is a supreme process of knowing rather than a supreme body of knowledge. Given this distinction, research suggests that knowing is tacit by nature and cannot be elicited (as theoretically argued by Ryle (“the Legend of the Ghost in the Machine”) and empirically endorsed by Nisbett/Wilson). Knowledge, on the other hand, possesses some potential for elicitation, but is only of indirect use for the listeners’ understanding. Secondly, the process of understanding needs clarification. Polanyi argues the need of indwelling. However, he does not refer to learning from verbal reports. A method was developed that considered these theoretical issues. Due to the distinction between knowing and knowledge, a division of labour between the narrator and the listeners is essential. The former concentrates on eliciting his/her knowledge and leaves the knowing untouched in his/her narration. It is the listeners’ role to use the knowledge as starting points to dwell in the narrator’s knowing. The method’s responsibility is to provide a most appropriate setting. This centrally requires the interposing of a pedagogical re-arrangement of the elicited knowledge contents in order to make them “indwellable.” Tacit knowing diffusion becomes a pedagogical process.

The research represents an exegesis of Polanyi’s tacit knowing concept. Additionally, empirical data is presented from the method’s implementation within a social work setting. There is reason to expect cultural aspects to be crucial for tacit knowing diffusion. Research in mentorships suggests them being very sensible toward intercultural aspects. A method that is exclusively based of verbalisms depends even more on (inter-) cultural aspects. The consequent research question asks for the method’s applicability in more culturally diverse settings. (Thus far, the context was culturally homogenous, with participants who share nationality, gender, and organisation.) It is apparent that any tacit knowing diffusion setting is quite sensible. Indeed, it has to be sensible since expertise itself is a highly sensible matter. The current research task is to evaluate the toughness of the method’s sensibility. From here, amendments can be developed in order to make the method more applicable in culturally diverse settings.

Several interactive elements are planned for the workshop. On four occasions, participants are invited to contribute short episodes and make their behaviour understandable to others. The presenter’s role can be described as “devil’s advocate,” in order to point out the problematic nature of narrations: 1) Hypothetical nature of narrations – Participants ought to realise the limits of introspection. 2) Need for pedagogical re-arrangement – The participants ought to experience the limits in making oneself understandable to others. Why does elicited knowledge need pedagogical re-arrangement in order to become understandable? Why can the experts not re-arrange the contents their selves? 3) Uncertain sensibility – The audience ought to experience the method’s vulnerability regarding shared cultural assumptions, intercultural irritations, and the group’s culture as such. 4) Strategies to increase the method’s intercultural robustness – This is an element of action research to further develop hypotheses.