The works of Michael Polanyi (1966) on tacit knowledge has significantly influenced academic dialogue on implicit knowledge in different scientific disciplines including sociology, philosophy, and education science. In contrast to explicit, rational, reflexive knowledge, implicit knowledge cannot be verbalized easily. It is expressed in the conversations and performances of the social actors. The documentary method (e.g. Bohnsack, 2018) is one approach allowing access to this practical implicit knowledge.

This paper aims to open a discussion on implicit and explicit knowledge analysed with the documentary method in the context of school education research. In contrast to other qualitative methods such as ethnography or content analysis, the documentary method provides a reflective approach to implicit knowledge structures guiding e.g. processes of professionalization of (ongoing) teachers (e.g. Paseka & Hinzke, 2018) and teaching and learning in lessons (e.g. Asbrand & Martens, 2022/in prep.). Using own study on teaching gender-sensitive sexuality education lessons at Armenian public schools, we give an insight into the documentary method and highlight the importance of distinguishing implicit and explicit knowledge. Moreover, to discuss the existing literature with the documentary method, our paper gives an overview of the research topics and methodological approaches that have been addressed so far in the context of school educational research in Europe and beyond. Using these results, we want to ignite a discussion on potentials and limitations of the documentary method in the context of school education research amongst European researchers.

Concerning implicit knowledge, various terms have been used including practical, atheoretical, internalized, incorporated, pre-reflexive or habitual knowledge. One characteristic emphasized in all definitions is that implicit knowledge builds the ground for social interaction and therefore is important for building routines. In his ethnomethodological approach, Garfinkel (1967, 35) focused on the “routine grounds of everyday activities“ which oppose understandings of social interaction as guided by rational decisions. Whereas ethnomethodology highlighted the importance of implicit knowledge especially in social orders and in organizations such as the police or psychiatry, Pierre Bourdieu developed the concept of habitus as modus operandi. In the tradition of sociology of culture, implicit knowledge appears as essential part of habitual structures structuring social (incorporated) practices. By doing so, Bourdieu distinguishes habitual practices from applying rules (e.g. Bourdieu, 1977).

A common feature between ethnomethodological approach and sociology of culture is the emphasis on the importance of implicit knowledge in contrast to rationalist approaches. But when it comes to empirical methods used to research implicit knowledge, both traditions have limitations. Ethnomethodology can be seen as a critique rather than an approach with valid empirical methods and methodological premises while the sociology of culture was mainly based on quantitative methods disallowing reconstruction of the tacit dimensions of implicit knowledge or habitus (see Bohnsack, 2017).

One approach that exceeds these limitations is the documentary method based on the sociology of knowledge of Karl Mannheim (1982). Different from theoretical knowledge, implicit or atheoretical knowledge allows access to the practice of social actors. In the 1980s, the German sociologist and educationalist Ralf Bohnsack transformed the documentary method of Mannheim into a modern empirical method for data analysis. Based on the analysis of group discussions of adolescents, Bohnsack developed a qualitative, reconstructive approach. Whereas implicit knowledge can be reached primarily by the analysis of discourse organization, i.e. in their shared frames of orientation, explicit knowledge shows what was literally said, i.e. in their schemes of orientation. This is done through two analytic steps - formulating and reflecting interpretation. Whereas the former is used to understand what is said, reflecting interpretation is about researching the modus operandi of practice (Bohnsack, 2010, 2018; Bohnsack et al., 2010).

To stimulate a discussion on the use of the documentary method in the outlined context, we take two steps (Hinzke et al., in prep./b). First we present the results of a systematic literature review on empirical papers in English language that use the documentary method in the field of school education research. Although there are papers published in other European languages such as Portuguese or Polish, we focus on English as the predominant lingua franca in educational research in Europe. To do a systematic review, we started with the list of literature provided by the German educationalist Arnd-Michael Nohl in which studies using documentary method are listed by bibliography and categorized by topics (HSU, 2020). Additionally, snowball approach was used to find further studies. A third strategy was to use databases and search engines such as Google Scholar or FIS Bildung. By doing so, 24 studies published between 2003 and 2022 were identified, mostly authored by researchers located in Germany. Some studies are authored by researchers in other European countries while a few by researchers from Brazil. Second, we present findings from an actual study with the documentary method by demonstrating how the implicit knowledge is reconstructed within gender-related discourses during sexuality education lessons in Armenia (Gevorgyan, in prep.). Whereas the study review gives an overview over existing research, the study of Gevorgyan is used as an example to give a deeper insight into the analysis of the implicit knowledge and its distinguishment from the explicit knowledge. The data – transcribed classroom discussions – is gathered from participant observations when the “Healthy Lifestyle” program was taught at Armenian schools. One of the schools was a secondary (8-9 graders), while another was a high school (10-11 graders) – both of them located in the capital Yerevan. The researcher participated in 76 Healthy Lifestyle lessons of three male teachers. Audio recordings of lessons served as the main data. To answer the research question how (implicit and explicit) knowledge of gender is produced in classroom and to examine the relevant framework of orientations, the documentary method (Bohnsack, 2018) was applied. In the presentation, results of the reflecting interpretation of two cases will be contrasted showing how gender is addressed implicitly and explicitly in classroom discussions.

The study review gives a systematic overview of the research topics that have been addressed in the studies using the documentary method in the context of school educational research in Europe and beyond so far. The role of implicit as well as explicit knowledge for analysing the respective topics will be pointed out in the presentation. In addition, the study review gives an overview of the methodical approaches used in the publications, i.e. ways of collecting data and using the documentary method for data analysis. Using Gevorgyan’s study, we give an insight into the importance of the documentary method for distinguishing implicit and explicit knowledge. Through the steps of the documentary method, the thematic analysis with the reconstruction of communicative meaning along with the reconstruction of implicit meaning was differentiated highlighting the homologous and contrasting patterns discerned in the analysis. Our common research project ‘Netzwerk Dokumentarische Schulforschung (NeDoS) – network on documentary school education research’, funded by the German Research Foundation, reveals that the documentary method is increasingly used in German speaking school education research (Bauer et al., 2020; Hinzke et al., in prep./a). Nevertheless, it is not very known in the European context. Therefore, our aim is to present this method to an international audience by discussing potentials as well as restrictions of this method through the systematic study review and Gevorgyan’s study.

Asbrand, B. & Martens, M. (2022, in prep.). Documentary Classroom Research. Theory and Methodology. In M. Martens, B. Asbrand, T. Buchborn & J. Menthe (Eds.), Dokumentarische Unterrichtsforschung in den Fachdidaktiken. Theoretische Grundlagen und Forschungspraxis. Springer VS. Bauer, T., Damm, A., Hinzke, J.-H., Kowalski, M., Matthes, D. & Schröder, J. (2020). Auf dem Weg zu einem Konzept Dokumentarischer Schulforschung: Zum Verhältnis von Methodologie, Methode, Forschungsgegenstand und Disziplin. NeDoS. https://uni-bielefeld.de/fakultaeten/erziehungswissenschaft/weos/forschungsprojekte/dfg-projekte/nedos/vortrage-publikationen/gemeinsame-vortrage-von-n/ (31.01.2022) Bohnsack, R. (2010). Documentary Method and Group Discussions. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Eds.): Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research (pp. 99-124). Barbara Budrich Publishers. Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Budrich/UTB. Bohnsack, R. (2018). Praxeological Sociology of Knowledge. In D. Kettler & V. Meja (Eds.), The Anthem Companion to Karl Mannheim (pp. 199-220). Anthem Press. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N. & Weller, V. (Eds.) (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Barbara Budrich Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Press. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. Gevorgyan, Z. (in prep.). Sexuality Education and Gender Sensitization: The case of Armenian Public Schools. Dissertation in Humboldt-University of Berlin. Hinzke, J.-H., Gevorgyan, Z. & Matthes, D. (in prep./a; 2023). The documentary method in the field of school education research in English language. Overview, insights, perspectives. In J.-H. Hinzke, T. Bauer, A. Damm, M. Kowalski, M. & D. Matthes (Eds.), Dokumentarische Schulforschung. Schwerpunkt: Schulentwicklung – Schulkultur – Schule als Organisation. Klinkhardt. Hinzke, J.-H., Bauer, T., Damm, A., Geber, G., Matthes, D. & Pallesen, H. (in prep./b; 2023). Initiation eines Forschungsprogramms Dokumentarische Schulforschung. In J.-H. Hinzke, T. Bauer, A. Damm, M. Kowalski, M. & D. Matthes (Eds.), Dokumentarische Schulforschung. Schwerpunkt: Schulentwicklung – Schulkultur – Schule als Organisation. Klinkhardt. HSU (Helmut-Schmidt-Universität Hamburg) (2020). Literaturliste zur dokumentarischen Methode – List of Publications related to the Documentary Method. https://www.hsu-hh.de/systpaed/wp-content/uploads/sites/755/2021/03/LitdokMeth21-03-13.pdf Mannheim, K. (1982). Structures of Thinking. London: Routledge. Paseka, A. & Hinzke, J.-H. (2018). Professionalisierung durch Forschendes Lernen!? Was tatsächlich in universitären Forschungswerkstätten passiert. In T. Leonhard, J. Kosinár & Ch. Reintjes (Eds.), Praktiken und Orientierungen in der Lehrerbildung. Potentiale und Grenzen der Professionalisierung (S. 191-206). Klinkhardt. Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.