Baiyin Yang

10.1177/1534484303254027 ARTICLEHuman Resource Development Review / June 2003

Yang / HOLISTIC THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND ADULT LEARNING

Toward a Holistic Theory ofKnowledge and Adult Learning

BAIYIN YANG

University of Minnesota

This article proposes a holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning.The theory posits that knowledge consists of three indivisible facets—explicit, implicit, and emancipatory knowledge, and that each of theknowledge facets consists of three layers—foundation, manifestation, andorientation. The holistic theory calls for a dialectical perspective aboutthe dynamic relationships among the three facets to better understandlearning. Three contemporary paradigms of knowledge and learning areexamined under the perspective of the holistic theory.

Keywords: adult learning; emancipatory knowledge; holistic theory;implicit knowledge; knowledge management; organizationallearning; tacit knowledge

To acknowledge what is known as known, and what is not known as notknown is knowledge.

—Confucius

The concepts of knowledge and learning can be traced back to more than

2 thousand years ago in Confucius time. These two concepts are playing

increasingly significant roles in the modern age as knowledge has become

one of the crucial resources for wealth, and learning becomes an integrative

component of the workplace. Learning is one of the key concepts in the

fields of adult education and human resource development (HRD), and

facilitating learning for individuals and organizations is one of the key roles

for HRD professionals. After analyzing many different definitions of HRD,

Gilley and Maycunich (2000) concluded that the field consists of three pro-

fessional practice domains: organizational learning, performance, and

change. Consequently, the principles of learning continue to be a central

topic of the field (Swanson & Holton, 2001).

Although adult learning has been defined in a variety of ways, most theo-

rists have examined the concept of learning at the individual level. For exam-

Human Resource Development Review Vol. 2, No. 2 June 2003 106-129DOI: 10.1177/1534484303254027© 2003 Sage Publications

Theory and Conceptual Articles

转载

http://www.paper.edu.cn

ple, learning has been defined as “relatively permanent change in behavior,

cognition, or affect that occur as a result of one’s interaction with the envi-

ronment” (DeSimone, Werner, & Harris, 2002, p. 75). Because learning is

central to both adult education and HRD, a number of theories and models of

learning and teaching can be found in the literature. These models of learn-

ing and teaching are rooted in various epistemic beliefs (Pratt, 1998). Con-

sequently, we need to examine the nature of knowledge to better understand

the process of learning and facilitation of adult and organizational learning.

According to Mezirow (1996), there are three major approaches to the

nature of knowledge that have dominated the adult learning literature. The first

approach is the Western rational tradition that constitutes an objective para-

digm of learning. The objectivist paradigm, or sometimes called empirical-

analytic paradigm, encompasses a set of assumptions about reality and

knowledge. Reality is believed to exist independently of mental representa-

tions of the world, and knowledge is thought to be objective. In this para-

digm, “educational process is to transmit accurate representations of the

real world, ideally established as such by scientific test” (p. 59). The second

approach is the interpretist paradigm. This paradigm views knowledge as

subjective and constructed from one’s experience within the frame of prior

interpretation. Learning is a function of life and systems of language. The

third approach, critical theory, views learning as a transformational process.

Following Habermas (1971, 1984), scholars in adult education argued that

the knowledge produced from the empirical–analytic tradition served the

interests of professionalization and control, and that these interests are not

emancipatory (Thompson & Schield, 1996; Wilson, 1993). From the per-

spective of critical theory, it is important to examine the power relationships

in which knowledge is produced and whose interests are served.

The three major approaches to knowledge (i.e., empirical–analytic, inter-

pretive, and critical) have typified efforts to define the concept of knowl-

edge from different perspectives. These perspectives have been shaped by

the examination of a limited consideration of the nature of knowledge. In

spite of the intense debates among scholars about the three perspectives, lit-

tle has been focused on how to bring about an integration of these different

approaches (Merriam, 1991). Very few efforts have been made to explore

the nature of knowledge and relationships among the three perspectives.

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a holistic theory of knowl-

edge and adult learning by bridging the previously unconnected areas of

knowledge and learning. As it is conceptualized here, the theory posits that

knowledge consists of three indivisible facets: explicit, implicit, and

emancipatory, and that it is more important to examine the dynamic interac-

tions among the three facets to better understand adult learning. Further-

more, the theory suggests that each of the three existing paradigms has

established its foundation on one knowledge facet and fails to recognize

Yang / HOLISTIC THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND ADULT LEARNING 107

中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.cn

such dynamic relationships. An integrative perspective emerges as the

result of interrelationships among three knowledge facets.

A Theoretical Frameworkof Knowledge and Learning

Knowledge as a Construct Comprises Three Facets

The previously mentioned three paradigms view knowledge as some-

thing in the world, either objectively representing reality or subjectively

existing in human beings. To overcome the dichotomy of objectivity and

subjectivity, this article argues that we should take a holistic perspective. We

frequently hear a saying: “you need to look on the other side of the coin.” In

fact, there are three sides of a coin: head, tail, and edge. This analogy applies

to the concept of knowledge. Knowledge as a social construct has three fac-

ets. Knowledge is defined as human beings’ understanding about the reality

through mental correspondence, personal experience, and emotional affec-

tion with outside objects and situations. This definition of knowledge has

the following implications. First, knowledge can only be demonstrated as

human beings’ understanding of the reality. Therefore, knowledge as a

social construct does not exist in certain static state, and it is the outcome of

the interaction between human beings and the outside world. Second,

knowledge is learned and accumulated through personal and social life

experiences. Knowledge is seen as being shaped by both personal inner fac-

tors and outside environmental factors. Third, there are at least three chan-

nels that link an individual’s inner state to outside reality: mental, behav-

ioral, and emotional processes.

The facets of knowledge are different aspects of the way in which we

know the physical, social, emotional, and spiritual world. We learn not only

through mental correspondence but also by direct personal involvement. We

also know things through our emotions. Because any knowing involves a

person or any organic entity (knower), these three knowing processes are

seen as involved and they are interrelated. Consequently, knowledge has

three distinct but interrelated facets: explicit, implicit, and emancipatory

knowledge. That is to say, knowledge facets reflect the different processes

of knowing. The explicit facet consists of the cognitive component of

knowledge that represents one’s understandings about reality. Explicit

knowledge refers to clear and certain mental apprehension that is transmitta-

ble in formal and systematic format. It is codified knowledge that identifies

true from false in the reality. It is part of the technical knowledge that

reflects one’s intentional and conscious effort to understand reality to meet

his or her individual needs. Theories, models, and formulas in textbooks are

examples of explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge itself is useful to a cer-

108 Human Resource Development Review / June 2003


tain extent, but it fails to offer a complete picture of the concept of knowl-

edge. It cannot capture the complexity of some ambiguous problems. For

example, when we have some health issues and need to find a medical doc-

tor, we don’t normally pay much attention to the physician’s grade point

average (GPA) achievement in medical school. Even though a high GPA in

the professional school may indicate that the doctor performed well aca-

demically, it only shows how well the doctor may have learned content in the

domain of explicit knowledge. Equally important to us is the doctor’s pro-

fessional experience and practical expertise.

The implicit or tacit facet is the behavioral component of knowledge that

denotes the learning that is not openly expressed or stated. In most cases, we

know more than we think we know (Polanyi, 1967). Implicit knowledge is

personal, context-specific familiarity, or the familiarity that has yet to be

articulated, and therefore hard to formalize and communicate. It speaks to

us if something works or not in reality based on direct observation or

involvement. Implicit knowledge usually comes from and exits in one’s

behavior, action, and accumulated experiences. However, experience itself

cannot automatically become valid implicit knowledge. Only the learning

and familiarity evolved from experience that has been confirmed can be

viewed as knowledge. Research has suggested that unconscious thoughts

and actions can be developed, received, stored, and recovered without the

involvement of conscious awareness (Dienes & Perner, 1999). Such uncon-

scious thoughts can be viewed as implicit knowledge. Eraut (2000) identi-

fied three types of tacit knowledge in professional work: tacit understanding

of people and situations, routinized actions, and the tacit rules that underpin

intuitive decision making. Lubit (2001) categorized four types of tactic

knowledge: hard to pin down skills such as know-how, mental models, ways

of approaching problems, and organizational routines. With regard to the

previously mentioned medical case, the doctor’s professional experience

and practical expertise comprise implicit knowledge. Therefore, we want to

visit a doctor with adequate explicit and implicit knowledge. Nevertheless,

we will probably still hesitate to visit a doctor when he or she is competent in

only these areas. Equally important for most patients is a doctor’s personal

care of clients, professional integrity, and interpersonal communication

skills.

The emancipatory facet is the affective component of knowledge and is

reflected in affective reactions to the outside world. Emancipatory knowl-

edge is emotional affection, and thus it is value-laden. It is indicated by feel-

ings and emotions people have in relation to the objects and situations

around them. Emancipatory knowledge defines one’s view about what the

world should be, and it is the product of one’s efforts to seek freedom from

natural and social restraints. It reflects one’s internal affective and motiva-

tional states. Bornstein (1999) maintained that a comprehensive theory of



knowledge must incorporate motivation and feeling states in addition to

explicit and implicit knowledge. Going back to the medical case, a doctor’s

personal care of clients, professional integrity, and interpersonal communi-

cation skills precisely define his or her emancipatory knowledge in the

profession.

This holistic theory of knowledge posits that all of the three facets are

present in all adult-learning processes, even though not all of them need to

experience a change. For example, knowledge facets can be identified in a

training session for customer service professionals. Principles and tech-

niques of enhancing customer service that have been identified by other

experts and presented in the training session constitute explicit knowledge.

The participants/practitioners in attendance bring their experiences and per-

sonal insights into the training session that illustrate their implicit knowl-

edge of customer service. Because a trainer cannot expect every participant

to have the same perception of the training contents, implicit knowledge

also includes those individual understandings of the same concept. Lastly,

motivations for learning, personal goals and objectives, codes of profes-

sional ethics, and shared visions for the training tend to reflect participants’

efforts to free themselves from certain constraints and thus constitute

emancipatory knowledge. Consequently, the holistic theory of knowledge

and learning suggests that an effective training program involves all of the

three knowledge facets. Learning occurs when one or more facets of knowl-

edge change.

Furthermore, the holistic theory calls for a dialectical perspective of the

three knowledge facets. On one hand, we need to acknowledge some intrin-

sically different characteristics of the three knowledge facets. If we examine

each of the three knowledge facets at a time, they tend to be different and

contradictory. The results will be like observing different faces of a coin. On

the other hand, we should understand the complementary nature of these

three knowledge facets. They are interacting with each other and indivisible

when we take a holistic perspective. They occur by default whether we rec-

ognize them or not. All of the three facets are necessary components of the

whole. To get a holistic perspective, the following sections will first discuss

different characteristics of the three knowledge facets and then describe the

complimentary nature of the facets.

Characteristics of the Three Knowledge Facets

The differences among the three facets of knowledge have both theoreti-

cal and practical importance. Table 1 compares the three facets of knowl-

edge and their related characteristics. Explicit knowledge is based on the

separation of object and subject, and it serves for the interest of rationality.

Implicit knowledge is established on the interrelation between object and



subject, and thus it is simultaneous and analog knowledge. The emancipatory

facet is essential and vital knowledge that defines the meaning of an object

within a subject. Broadly speaking, these three facets represent three differ-

ent domains of knowledge. The explicit facet is digital knowledge and repre-

sents theory. The implicit facet is analog knowledge and thus can be found in

practice. The emancipatory facet is vital knowledge and within the spiritual

domain.

These three facets are different not only in nature, function, domain, and

approach, but also in carriers, direct sources, evaluation criteria, and ulti-

mate goals. The explicit facet is within the domain of theory and thus carried

by various formal, abstract symbols, languages, and formulas. Theories,

models, formulas, principles, textbooks, and journal articles are examples

of explicit knowledge. For instance, my 14-year-old daughter could read

most of the words and sentences with this article but had a hard time under-

standing the theory I am building. This was not caused by her reading ability

(i.e., to understand the explicit facet of this theory), but largely owing to her

insufficient background in two other facets. The implicit facet is within the

domain of practice and carried by informal, concrete, and vivid experiences.

Implicit knowledge was valued before modern age when people learned by

doing in authentic situations. The emancipatory facet is within the domain

of human spirit and carried by values, conscience, dignity, and ethics. These

carriers of knowledge facets can be regarded as three types of human knowl-

edge as they serve different purposes. However, a clear separation of the

knowledge facets will result in an incomplete understanding of reality. The

explicit knowledge cannot be tested if it is separate from practice. The

explicit facet will become meaningless abstraction if it lacks a link with the

human spirit domain. The implicit facet will become insignificant practice

without the support of emancipatory knowledge. It cannot be constructed as

a powerful and robust knowledge base without the support of explicit

knowledge. For example, it was Newton who constructed a theory of gravity

though many others could have had intuitive knowledge that apples gravi-

tate toward earth. Those who may have had implicit knowledge of gravity

would not be able to apply the theory, gravity across different situations,

without a clear articulation of the explicit knowledge.

The direct source for explicit knowledge is logic and reasoning, and it is

judged by the criteria of empirical soundness, clarity, and consistency. It is

established on what is judged to be true in the world. Explicit knowledge

seeks truth and efficiency, and it tends to search for a single solution—an

action that maximizes its satisfaction or utility. This facet of knowledge is

facilitated by analytical intelligence and measured by conventional intelli-

gence tests. The implicit (or tacit) knowledge derives directly from practice,

experience, and familiarity. It needs to be practical and communicative

across situations. This facet of knowledge aims for reality, and it focuses on



112 TABLE 1: Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Comparison of Three Knowledge Facets

Knowledge Facets

Characteristics Explicit Implicit Emancipatory

Nature Knowledge of rationality (mind) Knowledge of experience (body) Knowledge of meaning (heart)

Function Sequential knowledge (there and

then)

Simultaneous knowledge (here

and now)

Essential knowledge (where and

why)

Domain Digital knowledge (theory) Analog knowledge (practice) Vital knowledge (spirit)

Approach Separation of object and subject

(objective)

Interrelated object and subject

(subjective)

Object within subject (affective)

Carrier Formal, abstract symbols &

languages

Informal, concrete, and vivid

experiences

Values, conscience, dignity, & ethics

Direct source Logic, reasoning Practice, experience Freedom, justice

Evaluation criteria Empirically sound, clear, and con-

sistency (true or false)

Workable, practical, communica-

tive (workable or not)

Enlightening, ethical, responsible

(right or wrong)

Ability to learn Analytical intelligence Practical intelligence Emotional intelligence

Goal Truth Reality Liberty

Efficiency Effectiveness Significance

Maximize Artistic Empowering

Problem nature Structured Less-structured Nonstructured

Related theory Prescriptive Heuristic Descriptive

Research tool Empirical-analytic Experiential-interpretive Critical-reflective

Research domain Cognition (thinking) Behavior (action) Affect (emotion)


the effectiveness that normally requires artistic instead of scientific solu-

tions. The ability to acquire implicit knowledge can be viewed as practical

intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1997).

People do not just know through thinking or doing, they also acquire

knowledge with their emotions and feelings. Emancipatory knowledge

includes human beings’ pursuit of freedom and justice, which is advanced

by values, assumptions, and ethics. In the quest for liberty and empower-

ment, emancipatory knowledge is normally evaluated by intellectual illumi-

nation and ethical responsibility. This facet of knowledge can also be facili-

tated and indicated by emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995, 1996).

Goleman noted that people with higher emotional intelligence tend to “have

a notable capacity for commitment to people or causes, for taking responsi-

bility, and for having an ethical outlook; they are sympathetic and caring in

their relationships” (1995, p. 45).

Researchers and theorists often tend to view the concept of knowledge

from one perspective or another. Moreover, academic fields and related lit-

eratures have been divided into camps of so-called paradigms. Scholars tend

to conduct their discourses within one camp or take only one perspective for

the sake of consistency. Those who place their emphasis on explicit knowl-

edge tend to examine relatively structured problems, use empirical-analytic

tools of research, and build prescriptive theories and models. Those who

accept the implicit nature of knowledge look at less-structured problems

with experiential–interpretive tools, and their research outputs appear as

heuristic theories and interpretations. Finally, those who contend that

emancipatory knowledge is vital for any sort of learning use such research

tools as critical reflection or participatory approach to probe nonstructured

problems, and their outcomes are normally descriptive. From a research per-

spective, the three facets of knowledge represent three domains of study:

cognition (explicit), behavior (implicit), and affect (emancipatory). Each of

the three domains reflects a long history of interest of investigation along

the lines of thinking, action, and emotion, respectively.

Complexity of the Three Knowledge Facets

Knowledge is a complex concept and even one knowledge facet within

the same domain may have different characteristics and functions. The con-

struct of knowledge consists not only of the three facets but also of three

knowledge layers. The knowledge layers include: foundation, manifesta-

tion, and orientation. The first layer is a stratum of foundation or premise,

which is the basis for our knowing and determines the boundary of explicit

knowledge. We have to accept certain assumptions to know and act. For

example, some learners may assume that instructions from an authority in

an academic discipline are true across situations and should be followed in



their professional practice. This layer indicates our epistemological beliefs.

The second layer is manifestation that represents the outcomes of our know-

ing. For example, we know certain instructional techniques work well for

certain types of learners. The third layer is the orientation of our knowing

that defines the direction and tendency of knowing action.

The three knowledge facets each have three different layers within their

domains. Table 2 describes indicators of the three layers across the three fac-

ets. Explicit knowledge is established on certain axioms, assumptions,

beliefs, and hypotheses, and it moves toward rational thinking. Theories,

principles, conceptual models or frameworks, conceptual frameworks, and

formulas manifest this facet of knowledge. The role of knowledge founda-

tion is different from its outcome or manifestation. We have to accept certain

assumptions simply because we cannot test or verify them. For example,

geometry has to assume the property of two parallel lines. Even though peo-

ple tend to intuitively accept one assumption that two parallel lines never

cross each other, no matter how long they can be extended, no one has drawn

them into infinity to prove that this assumption can be held. Nevertheless,

accepting or rejecting such an assumption can lead to different outcomes,

Euclidian or non-Euclidian geometry.

Similarly, implicit knowledge has three layers: foundation or basis, man-

ifestation, and orientation. Implicit knowledge is established on the basis of

habits, social norms, traditions, and routines. When we accept those that

have worked well in our previous experiences or those demonstrated by oth-

ers without much thinking, we are accumulating tacit knowledge. This

knowledge facet is driven toward practical action and manifested by tacit

understandings, technical know-how, mental models, and intuitive deci-

sions. A force of being practical determines its orientation.

Emancipatory knowledge facet also has three layers: foundation or basis,

manifestation, and orientation. At the foundation or basis layer, indicators

for emancipatory knowledge include values, personal aspirations, and per-

ceived ideals for people and society (i.e., vision). At the manifestation layer,

attitudes, motivations, learning needs, equity (i.e., perceived fairness and

justice), ethic behaviors, and moral standards appear. At the orientation

layer, emancipatory knowledge is driven by inherent forces of seeking free-

dom from any social and natural constrains and ideal of social justice.

Learning as Dynamic Interactions Among Knowledge Facets

Although the differences among the three facets of knowledge have long

been recognized, few scholars have examined their unitary nature and their

dynamic relationships. Even though knowledge facets may come from dif-

ferent sources and develop toward diverse directions, as previously dis-

cussed, none of them can be simply dismissed. A holistic theory must incor-



115

TABLE 2: Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Indications of Three Knowledge Facets and Three Knowledge Layers

Knowledge Facets

Knowledge Layers Explicit Implicit Emancipatory

Foundation Axioms, assumptions, beliefs,

hypotheses

Habits, social norms, traditions,

routines

Values, aspirations, vision

Manifestation Theories, principles, models,

conceptual frameworks,

formulas

Tacit understandings, know-how,

intuition, mental models

Attitudes, motivations, learning needs,

equity, ethics, moral standards

Orientation Rational Practical Freedom


porate all of the knowledge facets. Each of the three facets of knowledge

provides a support needed for the other facets to exist. Explicit knowledge

will exist only as meaningless facts, figures, or bytes of information without

the support of other facets (i.e., when two other facets are disconnected). We

normally use “body of knowledge” to denote theories, models, and empiri-

cal findings but fail to realize that these things only represent explicit facet

of knowledge. From the perspective of the holistic theory, theories and mod-

els themselves are not knowledge per se. They are carriers or indications of

explicit knowledge, and they become available information when human

factors are detached. As Davenport and Prusak (1998) noted, information

itself is not knowledge. Thus, the term knowledge base is a better term to

represent explicit knowledge such as theories and models in textbooks. One

cannot simply learn a great deal of robust knowledge in a profession by

memorizing all theories and models (i.e., explicit knowledge) in the chosen

professional field without adequate associations to a practice-based context

to gain adequate implicit knowledge. By the same token, emancipatory

knowledge that defines the objectives and missions that guide our actions

also influence learning.

Implicit knowledge also connects with the two other facets. It will appear

as random, idiosyncratic, and isolated practical experiences without the

support from two other facets. One can learn a great deal of technical know-

how (i.e., implicit knowledge) about fixing a car through trial-and-error and

learning by doing on one’s own. However, such knowledge about the pas-

senger vehicle is limited and may not work well with other cars. A compe-

tent auto mechanic needs to have some basic understanding of scientific

principles and engineering specifications (i.e., explicit knowledge) of an

automobile’s engine and other components. The third facet, emancipatory

knowledge, also influences the learning, because it determines the motiva-

tion of learning and career direction in the vocation.

Similarly, emancipatory knowledge will be simply emotion or affection

when the explicit and implicit facets are removed in the learning process.

The different terms used in the previous paragraphs and characteristics are

divided and examined just for the purpose of discourse, and they are explicit

writings with rational interest. In reality, a robust piece of knowledge con-

sists of three interrelated facets. A holistic view of knowledge should be a

dynamic dialectic among all three facets.

Consideration of these facets of knowledge can be facilitated by thinking

of them as angles of an equilateral triangle with the angle of the triangle

being the different facets of knowledge. The area inside of the triangle can

be regarded as the arena of knowledge, and the sides of the triangle represent

interactions among the facets. Even though educators and scholars can view

the concept of knowledge from one of the angles and work on a particular

side, there is always the influence of the other two angles in the arena. Each



of the angles is bounded by two angles and shaped by the inputs and influ-

ences from the other facets of knowledge. Learning can start in one of the

facets, and educators and learners can, consciously or unconsciously, move

toward one of the directions characterized by the knowledge facets. How-

ever, any change of one facet is always bounded by both of the other facets.

The dynamic relationships among the knowledge facets and related

learning modes are presented in Figure 1. The three circles in the figure rep-

resent the knowledge facets, and the lines with arrows refer to the interac-

tion between the facets. It is assumed that knowledge is created and trans-

formed through the interactions among explicit, implicit, and emancipatory

knowledge. These relations allow us to draw at least nine modes of learning:

participation, conceptualization, contextualization, systematization, vali-

dation, legitimization, transformation, interpretation, and materialization.

It is possible that a number of interactions are involved in a learning situa-

tion. For the purpose of clarity, it is necessary to describe them one by one in

a linear fashion.

Learning occurs as a result of interactions within each of and among the

three knowledge facets. Learning can start in any of three knowledge facets

and in different forms. Learning may involve one, two, or all of the three

knowledge facets. Learning is defined as the process whereby knowledge is

created, acquired, transformed, converted, or utilized in a different context

from its origin. Knowledge creation is a learning process where new under-

standing (in either of three facets) about reality is formed. For example, the-

ory building is a knowledge creation process that normally results in a new

format of explicit knowledge. Knowledge acquisition such as attending a

lecture is also a learning process where a learner gains knowledge from

another source in the original form. Knowledge transformation refers to a

process where the learning outcome is a new format of knowledge. For

instance, research seminars and symposiums are sometimes very powerful

in transforming the participants’ knowledge to a greater understanding on

the topic. Knowledge conversion refers to the exchange from one knowledge

facet to another, and the following paragraphs will discuss different forms of

knowledge conversion in detail. Finally, knowledge utilization can also be

viewed as learning when a learner applies it in a different context from its

original and gains new understanding about the problem facing him or her.

In sum, learning involves all of three knowledge facets and appears in differ-

ent forms.

Participation is a process of learning from practice and thereby creating

implicit knowledge from experiences. Although a learner can build implicit

knowledge directly from experience, differences between implicit knowl-

edge and experience should be acknowledged. Experience refers to some-

thing personally encountered, undergone, or lived through. Although expe-

rience provides a basis for implicit knowledge, experience does not



automatically become implicit knowledge. Participation is a process of

gaining knowledge through personal direct experience. The direct outcomes

of participation are conscious and unconscious mental models, and techni-

cal skills such as know-how. Many forms of learning such as apprenticeship,

demonstrations, case studies, coaching, mentoring, on-job-training, hands-

on-training, nonformal learning, and reflection-in-action fall into this mode

of learning. Personal participation in individual and social activities will

always result in implicit learning, which, in turn, develops intuitive (or tacit)

knowledge. Psychological studies have shown that such knowledge is opti-

mally acquired independent of conscious efforts to learn, and it can be effec-

tively used to solve problems and make decisions (Gerholm, 1990; Reber,

1989). As a new faculty member in a research university, I learned about my

role of teaching and research largely from the process of socialization and

direct participation. Although I also learned about my role and responsibili-

ties partly from the faculty handbook (as explicit knowledge), personal par-

ticipation and socialization tend to be more effective in such situations.


ParticipationSystematization

Interpretation

Transformation

Vali

datio

n

Materialization

Legi

timiz

atio

n

EmancipatoryKnowledge

ExplicitKnowledge

ImplicitKnowledge

Conceptualization

Contextualization

FIGURE 1: Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Dynamic Relationships ofThree Knowledge Facets and Implied Modes of Learning


Conceptualization is a process of articulating implicit knowledge into

explicit concepts. It converts familiarities into tangible explanations by pro-

posing new concepts or theories. It is a quintessential knowledge-creation

process in that implicit knowledge becomes explicit, taking forms of meta-

phors, analogies, concepts, hypotheses, or models (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995). For example, a professional may summarize what has been learned

from practice, reflect on the literature in the field, and write up a scholarly

article for publication. Other professionals in the field then can learn from

such explicit knowledge. Examples of this learning mode are: brainstorm-

ing, critical questioning, discussion, reflection-on-action, self-reflection,

hypothesis development, and summative evaluation. The development of

many wonderful theories and concepts in social and natural sciences dem-

onstrates brilliant application of conceptualization. Before Isaac Newton,

human beings had noticed that apples always drop from trees but few ques-

tioned the underlying reason. It was possible that people may have explored

the reason and recognized a certain force that pulls apples from trees to the

earth but failed to articulate that force well. It was Newton who developed

the concept of gravity and even deduced a law that governs the relationship

between two objects in the universe. This conceptualization process is so

powerful that it captures the essence of human beings’ intuitive knowledge

and extends such implicit knowing to broader contexts such as the relation

between the earth and the moon.

Contextualization is a process of embodying explicit knowledge into

implicit knowledge. It is the process of utilizing concepts, models, formu-

las, principles, and propositions in a specific context. A teacher is in this

learning mode when he or she examines the appropriateness of a newly

developed teaching method in his or her classroom. Because there may be

countless factors that affect the decision to adopt the new method, and the

person who developed the method cannot anticipate all possible applicable

situations, the teacher may not be able to clearly state the rationale and the

process of such decision. Therefore, such a learning process that involves

action or behavior will always bring about a change of implicit knowledge.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) thought that this is an internalization process.

Internalization tends to be a narrow definition because it refers to a learning

process of embodying explicit knowledge created by others. Contextualization

includes learning processes of making sense of previous experience or

reexperiencing other people’s experiences. Examples of this learning mode

include: action learning, internship, formative evaluation, learning-by-

doing, examination of case story, role-play, and simulation.

Systematization is a process of systematizing explicit conceptions into a

system with logic and reasoning. This learning mode generally involves

combining different bodies of explicit knowledge in a consistent format.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) termed this process as combination. People



exchange and combine explicit knowledge through such forms as seminars,

debates, literature critiques, conferences, symposiums, and competence-

based-training. As it has been mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the

most useful learning tools in the systematization process are logic and

reasoning.

Validation is a process of examining and possibly modifying underlying

values, desires, judgments, perceived importance and worth, and other

kinds of fundamental learning based on explicit knowledge (which is

believed to be true under a rational perspective). Mezirow (1996) suggested

that we establish validity either by empirically testing to determine the truth

or by appealing to tradition, authority, or rational discourse. He contends,

“Discourse allows us to test the validity of our beliefs and interpretations”

(p. 165). Employee orientation and correctional education are two examples

of this learning mode. Correctional education is designed for offenders in a

program of treatment and rehabilitation for the purpose of improving their

emancipatory knowledge.

Legitimization is a process of justifying explicit knowledge based on

emancipatory knowledge. For instance, many higher education institutions

changed admission regulations after the civil rights movement owing to

changes in the social value system. Examples of this learning process are:

debate, forum and panel discussion, community meetings, critical thinking,

and team building. DeSimone et al. (2002) acknowledged that part of a team

building effort is to unify varied individual energies (from emancipatory

domain) and direct these energies toward valued individual and organiza-

tional objectives (i.e., explicit knowledge). At the individual learning level,

legitimization tends to be invisible, but plays an important role in the learn-

ing process. In other words, our value system (i.e., emancipatory knowl-

edge) legitimates our beliefs (i.e., explicit knowledge). I cannot understand

some common football terminologies due to personal lack of interest in the

game of football. More important, emancipatory knowledge may facilitate

or deter the acceptance of explicit knowledge. In a high profile murder case,

the prosecution stated that the blood and other evidence proved that the

defender was the murderer, although the defense contended that such evi-

dence was contaminated and/or planted (CNN, n.d.). The jurors in the case,

however, were split along racial lines and consequently believed one theory

or the other. This case demonstrates that emancipatory knowledge can play a

crucial role in learning, because it can cause one to accept, deny, or reject

certain explicit knowledge.

Transformation is a process of converting an old meaning scheme (i.e.,

values, feelings, ethics, etc.) into another form. It should be noted that

transformative learning does not necessary occur in a positive direction.

Some life experiences may bring about learning with a negative interpreta-

tion (Merriam, Mott, & Lee, 1996). The key to understanding such a compli-



cated learning process lies in its inherent force of seeking physical, psycho-

logical, social, emotional, and spiritual freedom and in the interactions

between emancipatory knowledge and the two knowledge facets. Examples

of this learning mode are: nonviolence action, self-reflection, and participa-

tory study.

Materialization is a process of transferring emancipatory knowledge into

implicit knowledge. Those who utilize what has been learned from partici-

patory action research to improve the quality of their daily life are in the pro-

cess of materialization. Examples of this learning mode include: action

learning, community development, and task force. In a typical educational

program for community development, participants work on consensus val-

ues and development of shared vision (i.e., starting from emancipatory

knowledge) and then take individual actions accordingly (i.e, at the implicit

level).

Interpretation is a process of making a meaning scheme from tacit learn-

ing and direct experiences. People are often empowered and have a new look

about life through their involvement in participatory action research, and

this is an example of the learning process of interpretation. Critical ques-

tioning and conscious awareness technique are two examples of this learn-

ing mode as the ultimate outcome is aimed at changing emancipatory

knowledge. Learners may interpret the same life experience differently. One

longitudinal study shows that adult life experiences can result in diverse

development outcomes (Merriam & Yang, 1996). For example, those who

have experienced a period of unemployment have expressed more sensitiv-

ity to social and economic inequality. However, they felt marginalized, vul-

nerable, and controlled by external forces. The results suggest that those

who experienced unemployment had different interpretations of personal

agency and perceived different social issues from those who never had such

experiences. Under the perspective of the holistic theory, perceived individ-

ual freedom and social justice may cause the reason for such ambivalent

interpretations of life experiences as well (i.e., under the influence of orien-

tation layer within emancipatory knowledge).

Learning as a Social Activity

The previous paragraphs have examined the nature of knowledge and

how learning takes place at the individual level. Learning is an individual

and social process as well. Few learning actions happen as exclusively indi-

vidual activities. We should acknowledge the interactions between adult

learning and social or cultural contexts. Figure 2 illustrates a conceptual

framework that depicts the interrelationships between individual learning

and social or cultural contexts. The framework consists of two rings. The

inner ring represents individual learning, whereas the outside ring indicates



the dynamic relationships among dominated knowledge of a social group or

an organization that an individual belongs to.

In most learning situations, the learner is interacting with his or her

immediate social group or organization within certain social or cultural con-

texts. To function well, a group or organization has to have three major com-

ponents—critical knowledge, technical knowledge, and practical knowl-

edge. The totality of emancipatory knowledge of organizational members

constitutes critical knowledge for the organization or a group of people. For

example, values and visions of an organization represent shared preferences


CriticalKnowledge

Individual

Social Group/Organization

External Social, Cultural, Political and Technological Environment

PracticalKnowledge

TechnicalKnowledge

EmancipatoryKnowledge

ImplicitKnowledge

ExplicitKnowledge

FIGURE 2: Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Dynamic RelationshipsBetween Individual, Organization and Social/Cultural Contexts


of organizational members and thus indicate the critical knowledge of the

organization. Values explain much variance in organizational processes

because they predict many outcome variables such as innovation and perfor-

mance (Connor & Becker, 1975). The sum of implicit knowledge of organi-

zational members makes up practical knowledge. Practical knowledge

exists in organizational processes and practices. Similarly, any organization

has certain technical knowledge that represents those believed to be true

explicit knowledge by its members and has been incorporated into its sys-

tem. Technical knowledge normally exists in systems and structures. From

the perspective of holistic theory, group learning can be defined as a process

of change in the dimensions of collective beliefs (i.e., shared technical

knowledge), social norms (i.e., prevalent practical knowledge), and shared

values (i.e., dominant critical knowledge) among group members.

Viewing learning as a social activity has several important implications.

First of all, it allows us to better understand learning at different levels. Indi-

vidual knowledge is quite different from group, organizational knowledge

or societal knowledge (Lyles & Schwenk, 1992; Tsoukas & Vladimirou,

2001). Lyles and Schwenk (1992) contended that organizational knowledge

is very different from individual knowledge, because it is socially con-

structed and relies on consensus or agreement. Even though organizational

knowledge and societal knowledge generally reflect individual knowledge

of its members, they are not always consistent. Because knowledge from dif-

ferent individuals may not be homogenous, it is very important to identify

the processes and mechanisms where individual knowledge becomes lead-

ing or dominant knowledge in an organization or at society’s level. The

framework presented in Figure 2 suggests dynamic relations between indi-

vidual and group/organizational knowledge. It echoes one assertion that

organizational learning is not simply the sum of what individuals are learn-

ing but more than that (Easterby-Smith, Crossan, & Nicolini, 2000). Under

the perspective of the holistic theory suggested in Figure 2, organizational

knowledge can be viewed as collective understandings among members

through their technical, practical, and emancipatory facets of knowledge.

Organizational learning involves changes of technical, social, and political

dimensions of the organization. Lyles and Schwenk (1992) suggested,

“Changes in the organizational knowledge structure occur as a result of the

impact of the interpretation of environmental events, results of past organi-

zational actions, the influence of the key decision-makers, and the advocacy

position of coalitions within the firm” (p. 158).

Second, the framework presented in Figure 2 has implications for organi-

zational learning. Crosssan, Lane, and White (1999) observed that a general

theory had yet to be developed and validated, even though interest in organi-

zational learning had grown dramatically. They proposed one of the most

comprehensive frameworks of organizational learning that includes four



processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing.

Intuiting refers to the subconscious process of developing insights, and thus

similar to the concept of participation suggested by the holistic theory. The

inputs of the intuiting are experiences and images, whereas the outcomes are

metaphors. Therefore, the intuiting process can be viewed as part of partici-

pation to gain implicit knowledge at the individual level.

Interpreting in Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework represents an individ-

ual learning process of picking up on the conscious elements and developing

cognitive maps. This process is similar to conceptualization included in the

holistic theory. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the interpreting are limited to

cognitive domain, and thus the affective domain has been ignored. Accord-

ing to the holistic theory, organizational learning needs to start from the

individual level but does not have to be limited to the implicit domain.

Integrating in Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework refers to shared under-

standing by group members that results in coherent, collective actions. This

learning process reflects the dynamic relationships between individual and

group knowledge and thus can be understood as the interactions between the

two rings in Figure 2. However, the holistic theory suggests that integrating

individual knowledge does not always occur in the cognitive domain and at

system level of an organization. An organization can integrate individuals’

implicit knowledge such as insights and technical know-how, particularly

those hard to be expressed in formal language and symbols, by promoting

and encouraging socialization among members. Similarly, an organization

can integrate individuals’ emancipatory knowledge into its values and con-

sequently change its critical knowledge.

Institutionalizing in Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework referred to a

learning process in which organizations transfer individual and group learn-

ing and embed such learning in the systems, structure, strategy, rules, and

procedures. Consequently, institutionalizing indicates the change of organi-

zational technical knowledge (carried by systems and structure) as a result

of the changes of practical knowledge (carried by processes and practices)

and individual knowledge. Because Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework did

not distinguish three domains of organizational knowledge; it fails to cap-

ture some of the key organizational learning activities. For example, the

holistic theory suggests that changing an organization’s values and visions

is a vital learning process and that it’s critical knowledge that interacts with

individual shared values and critical knowledge. Rules and procedures can

be institutionalized but cannot guarantee the desired change and the coher-

ence of individual values. Many organizations have established their values

and visions, but they stay only as slogans on walls and fail to be incorporated

in daily practice owing the incongruence with employees’ critical knowl-

edge. The holistic theory presented in Figure 2 provides a relatively clear



picture of the dynamic relationships between individual and organizational

learning.

Third, the framework presented in Figure 2 offers valuable insights to

study learning organizations. The concept of the learning organization has

received much attention in HRD literature, but few theories in this area have

clearly identified organizational knowledge. According to Watkins and

Marsick (1993, 1996), learning organizations should be built at individual,

team, and organization-wide levels. As a social entity, an organization

learns as a result of changes in its three knowledge domains (i.e., corre-

sponding to its collective value and vision, system and structure, and pro-

cess and practice). The conceptual framework presented in Figure 2 not only

clearly identifies three major knowledge domains, but it also delineates

their functions and dynamic relationships. Findings from a case study of

strategic organizational learning by Thomas, Sussman, and Henderson

(2001) tended to support the dynamic relationships among different knowl-

edge domains. It was confirmed that rich experience was the creating source

of diverse meanings and assimilation of tacit knowledge. Organizational

learning processes were characterized by knowledge acquisition, interpre-

tation, validation, and assimilation across multiple levels of the organiza-

tion. A detailed discussion on the implications of the holistic theory for

organizational learning and knowledge management is beyond the limited

scope of this article. However, the dynamic relationships among the three

knowledge facets at the individual level are applicable at the organizational

level. For example, employees’ perceived justice (i.e., individual

emancipatory knowledge under a strong influence of collective critical

knowledge) might facilitate or inhibit knowledge sharing (Lubit, 2001).

In summary, the holistic theory proposed in this article suggests that

knowledge is a three faceted social construct. To understand the nature of

knowledge and the processes of adult and organizational learning, we need

not only to acknowledge different characteristics of three knowledge facets,

but also to recognize the dynamic relationships among them. Learning can

be understood as a change in one or more facets in the dynamic relationships

within social and cultural contexts.

Contemporary Paradigms inthe View of the Holistic Theory

There has been a great deal of discussion about the paradigms of learning

and research (Merriam, 1991; Mezirow, 1996). From the perspective of the

proposed holistic theory of knowledge and learning, contemporary para-

digms have evolved with emphasis on one facet of knowledge or another.

The positivist or objectivist paradigm posits that only the explicit facet is



valid knowledge (Searle, 1993). Learning occurs as learners relate concepts

descriptive of the new knowledge to previous knowledge within their cogni-

tive structure. The integration of new and previous knowledge occurs

through changes in the learners’ conceptual structure. Concepts are devel-

oped and stored in a hierarchical structure. The positivist paradigm assumes

that human beings are rational and take action based on explicit knowledge.

The essential element of the rationality is a conscious goal and the best

action selected from all relevant alternatives that maximize the promise of

reaching that goal. Nevertheless, because of much emphasis on explicit or

technical knowledge, this perspective might ignore or pay less attention to

the roles of unconscious learning and learning in the affect domain.

The interpretive paradigm emphasizes the implicit nature of knowledge

and the changing influences of reality. Knowledge is acquired only through

experiences and direct engagement in practice (i.e., participation; Lave &

Wenger, 1991). Consequently, this paradigm values implicit or practical

knowledge. Mezirow (1990) contended that the learning process involved

looking at past experiences, new experiences, and reflecting on these for the

purpose of making meaning. Observing the dynamic world and the com-

plexity of human communication, the interpretive paradigm asserts that

realities are multiple and subjective and that truth is relative. Consequently,

such assertion poses a dilemma. Do we want the communication of our

interpretations to be as clear as if there is a single reality or, with multiple

realities (possibly billions of different interpretations), a confusion that

leads to no action? Such dilemmas can be found in Mezirow’s theory of

transformational learning. On one hand, this theory rejects a positivist

notion of absolute truth and assumes that knowledge is subjective. On the

other hand, this theory “seeks to establish a general, abstract, and idealized

model which explains the generic structure, dimensions, and dynamics of

the learning process” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 166). From the perspective of the

holistic theory, all theories serve as carriers of explicit or technical knowl-

edge and thus have positivist elements. The interpretive paradigm fails to

distinguish interpretations from reality.

The critical paradigm involves a commitment to deliberate action for jus-

tice in society, whereas the existing social structure is seen as coercive and

oppressive. It argues that any adequate approach to theory must provide

ways of distinguishing ideologically distorted interpretations from those

that are not (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Although the critical paradigm focuses

on emancipatory or critical knowledge, it assumes that a certain part of

knowledge is distorted. Although this paradigm strongly advocates the

rejection of positivist notions of rationality, objectivity, and truth because of

its danger to move toward hegemony, most of its propositions tend to fall

into the scope of instrumental rationality. Without the support from two

other facets, emancipatory or critical knowledge might lead to a true “false



consciousness.” Many communist movements were originated from the

critical paradigm and aimed toward emancipation for the working class, but

they later tended to be very hegemonic because of the lack of continuous

validation.

Therefore, existing paradigms have limited perspectives about knowl-

edge, and we should attempt to end paradigm wars. What we need is a holis-

tic view with a dialectical perspective. That is to say, it is necessary to realize

both the contradictory and complementary nature of knowledge. Learning is

not an easy task moving toward one direction in a linear fashion. On one

hand, the three knowledge facets have been established on different bases,

with different characteristics, and move toward different directions. On the

other hand, there are dynamic relationships among these facets. More

important, knowledge is always changing, and learning is taking place along

with any changes in the three knowledge facets. Consequently, although

scholars and practitioners may limit their work only in one or two domains,

they need to acknowledge the roles of and relations with all of the other

knowledge facets.

Conclusion

This article presents a holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning.

By examining the major characteristics of three knowledge facets, it argues

that learning can be understood within the interactions among the three fac-

ets of knowledge. It further argues that each of the knowledge facets should

be examined in three layers because of their different roles and functions.

The conventional paradigms assume that knowledge facets are divisive and

thus fail to integrate the dynamic relationships among knowledge facets.

Therefore, research and theory building need to consider the nature of

knowledge facets. Theories must meet the requirements of empirically

sound, communicative clarity, and critically analysis (Brookfield, 1992).

As part of knowledge base, theory-building efforts should consider the

nature of three knowledge facets. Adequate criteria of theory building

should include explicit facet of knowledge (i.e., empirically sound and logi-

cal), implicit facet of knowledge (i.e., communicative and practical), and

emancipatory facet of knowledge (i.e., critical and ethical).

More research and theory building activities need to be done to test and

validate the proposed holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning.

Because of space limitation, this article largely focused on the nature of

knowledge and learning at the individual level and learning in certain social

or cultural contexts. Similar theorization needs to be done at the group and

organizational levels to explore the effective ways of knowledge manage-

ment and organizational learning.



References

Bornstein, R. F. (1999). Unconscious motivation and phenomenal knowledge: Toward a comprehen-

sive theory of implicit mental states. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 758.

Brookfield, S. (1992). Developing criteria for formal theory building in adult education. Adult Edu-

cation Quarterly, 42, 79-93.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lon-

don: Falmer.

CNN (n.d.). Simpson judge OKs jury prospects who admit bias. Retrieved November 27, 2002, from

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/index.html

Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1975). Values and the organization: Suggestions for research. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 18, 550-561.

Crosssan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From

intuition to institution. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 522-537.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they

know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

DeSimone, R. L., Werner, J. M., & Harris, D. M. (2002). Human resource development (3rd ed.).

Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 22, 735-808.

Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: Debates past,

present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 783-796.

Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.

Gerholm, T. (1990). On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal of Education, 25, 263-271.

Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance, and change: An

introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: What it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24(6), 49-

50.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimated peripheral participation. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Lubit, R. (2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable competitive

advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 164-178.

Lyles, M. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1992). Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge

structure. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 154-174.

Merriam, S. B. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In J. M. Peter & P. Jarvis (Eds.), Adult

education: Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study (pp. 42-65). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., Mott, V., & Lee, M. (1996). Learning that comes from negative interpretation of life

experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 18(1), 1-23.

Merriam, S. B., & Yang, B. (1996). A longitudinal study of adult life experiences and development

outcomes. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 62-81.

Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.),

Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning

(pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 158-173.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies

create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.



Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in higher and adult education. Malabar, FL:

Krieger.

Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

118, 219-235.

Searle, J. R. (1993). Rationality and realism, what is at stake? Daedalus, 122, 55-83.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success.

American Psychologist, 52, 1030-1037.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Fran-

cisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

Thomas, J. B., Sussman, S. W., & Henderson, J. C. (2001). Understanding “strategic learning”:

Linking organizational learning, knowledge management, and sensemaking. Organization Sci-

ence, 12, 331-345.

Thompson, M. M., & Schield, F. M. (1996). Neither political nor visionary: Language,

professionalization, and the representation of women in the journals of adult education, 1929-

1960. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 123-141.

Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management

Studies, 38, 973-993.s

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993) Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and

science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization.Alexandria,

VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Wilson, A. L. (1993). The common concern: Controlling professionalization of adult education.

Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 1-16.

Baiyin Yang is an associate professor of human resource development and

adult education at the University of Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. from

the University of Georgia and has served on the graduate faculties of Auburn

University and University of Idaho. His primary research focus has been on

the development and validation of a holistic theory of knowledge and adult

learning. His research interests include program planning and evaluation,

adult and organizational learning, power and influence tactics, cross-cultural

studies of learning and organizational behavior, and quantitative research

methods. He is presently serving as the quantitative method editor of Human

Resource Development Quarterly and consulting editor of Adult Education

Quarterly.



Baiyin Yang

Education

Transcript of Baiyin Yang