I enjoyed your presentation yesterday and I like where you're going
with developing sub-categories for explicit and tacit knowledge. I
have a couple of thoughts that you might want to consider.
You describe rather than define the sub categories (what it looks
like rather than what it is). Description is an essential first
step, but you have to define something to truly understand what
distinguishes each category. This leads to a bit of ambiguity and
inconsistency in the groups (all of which is solvable).
Specific knowledge - suggest "domain" or "subject-matter" rather
than "specific." The latter is too general and could mean almost
anything. Domain would seem to include formal and explicit
Analytical knowledge - great. You may want to include synthesis
along with analysis in this group (lumpers & splitters).
Personal know how - This group is problematical. It switches from
knowledge to know how. May I suggest "experential knowledge" which
leads to guidelines, options, and pattern recognition.
Skill - Even more problematic. When I look at the examples, the
only thing that seems to fit is "practice-based" knowledge (not the
greatest of names). But I also see it as containing two kinds of
stuff - physical or tactile (playing music, riding a horse) and
cognitive (thinking). I feel that these are very different and two
categories are warranted here.
BTW - Thanks for clarifying the difference between thinking (the
process) and thought (the output of the process).
Bottom line - if you can define everything as a form of knowledge
you will clearly and consistently understand the underlying
properties that differentiates each category.
Use or not, for what it's worth. I have a short essay on
description and definition if you're interested.