One important question in educational research is, to what extent can experts’ successful experiences enhance learners’ competence and development of their own expertise? This question is particularly relevant for theories of continuing professional development, as well as for vocational education and training (VET). The following theoretical conception derives from an empirical research project within the context of social workers’ continuing professional development. Within this context, it is not possible for professionals to observe each other directly in their working processes – a problem that is well known to teachers and (school) leaders. Consequently, strategies to support professional competence development are limited to the ex-post narrations of experts. Any approach that exclusively relies on verbal speech has to tackle, forthwith, the hurdle of tacit knowing. Originally, co-practice of a master and a learner was heavily recommended to help make sense of someone else’s skills (indwelling, Polanyi). In this particular research setting, however, co-practice is not possible. Understanding must exclusively rely on verbal data from experts’ ex-post narrations. The research question, therefore, is: How should experts’ narrations be arranged in order to provide a sufficient basis for indwelling? So far, no convincing theoretical concept is available that can bridge learning from others’ reports of expert-like behaviour with an explicit consideration of Polanyi’s notion of tacit knowing. In order to overcome this gap, an exegesis of Polanyi’s consciousness model was necessary that went far beyond its popular notions. For Polanyi, all human acting can be modelled as a relation of two levels of awareness, which builds a mental triad. This is the case for both the narrating expert and the listeners: For the expert, in the way he/she previously mastered the episode, and for the listeners, in the way they now try to indwell in their master’s expertise. Polanyi’s model offers an equally convincing conceptual framework for both participants. The paper presents the results of this exegesis as well as the arising pedagogical consequences for the facilitation of indwelling. Two theoretical aspects had to be elaborated in order to clarify how to arrange learning settings in this case. Both require exegeses of Polanyi’s original concepts. Further credibility for theory is added by numerous references to empirical data from the social work project mentioned above.

Firstly, a theory of expertise has to clarify what the learners ought to understand, precisely. Secondly, a theory of understanding is necessary in order to define what it means, within the conceptual framework of Polanyi, to understand someone else’s mental triads. For Polanyi, understanding requires indwelling. However, he does not explicate this aspect in detail and by no means refers to understanding via the indirection of verbalism. For him, the core of expertise is a supreme process of judging that lead to supreme practical judgements. Given this, understanding is seen as the development of a theory of the judging process. Understanding is reached through the listeners’ answers to why the expert ended up in this situation with a mental triad of this particular structure. However, due to undivided consciousness, everyone’s answer is inauthentic (Nisbett/Wilson; Ryle). So, it all comes back to Polanyi’s original notion of tacit knowing.

The exegesis of Polanyi’s concept leads to several insights to consider in the design of learning settings that ought to facilitate understanding narrations of expertise: • Understanding ought to focus the expert’s process of judging, not the judgement. It is insufficient to elicit knowledge of the result if the process is of actual interest for indwelling, namely the process of knowing. • The strict distinction between knowing and knowledge serves realistic expectations regarding the elicitation of knowledge. While knowledge (of mental stages) can be potentially elicited, knowing (of mental processes) will always remain tacit. • Approaching the understanding for knowing is more difficult than aiming for the understanding of knowledge. A division of labour between the narrator and the listeners is necessary. While narrators ought to resist their tendency to construct hypothetical theories of their knowing in order to answer the why-question, listeners’ willingness to indwell is irreplaceable.