Skip to content

tacit vs. explicit theories: the impact on our thinking and ‘theorizing’

tacit vs. explicit theories: the impact on our thinking and ‘theorizing’: “Sooner or later many of us are guided by set of theories, frameworks and paradigms in our research work, some of them tacit and some explicit. They direct our research within the appropriate and relevant scholarly community, thus increasing the chances for scholarly collaboration and communication with like-minded folks.
However, the same theories, paradigms and frameworks also limit our imagination and innovative thinking, they create the box within which we think and operate. Thus, they can have potentially negative effect by filtering away problems and issues that merit scholarly scrutiny but are not scrutinized because our mode of thinking does not allow them to reach us.”
Comment: In my own thinking, I’ve found a strong interplay of emotion and logic. Once a theory moves to the status of “belief”, it becomes increasingly resilient to change. In fact, attempts to change often result in stronger declaration of its truth. Learning theories ignore this unusual phenomenon of utilizing logic to guard emotional views. By the same account, I’m uniquely susceptible to logical inconsistencies within domains of knowledge I already possess (to see this in action, consider how tolerant we are of the “failings” of our own political party).