Product Code Database
Procedural knowledge (also known as know-how, knowing-how, and sometimes referred to as practical knowledge, imperative knowledge, or performative knowledge) is the knowledge exercised in the performance of some task. Unlike descriptive knowledge (also known as declarative knowledge, propositional knowledge or "knowing-that"), which involves knowledge of specific facts or propositions (e.g. "I know that snow is white"), procedural knowledge involves one's ability to do something (e.g. "I know how to change a flat tire"). A person does not need to be able to verbally articulate their procedural knowledge in order for it to count as knowledge, since procedural knowledge requires only knowing how to correctly perform an action or exercise a skill.
The term procedural knowledge has narrower but related technical uses in both cognitive psychology and intellectual property law.
The distinction between knowing-how and knowing-that was brought to prominence in epistemology by Gilbert Ryle who used it in his book The Concept of Mind.
Know-how is also often referred to in Plain English as street smarts (sometimes conceived as the opposite of ), and a person employing their street smarts as street wise. Know-how is often tacit knowledge, which means that it can be difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge is explicit knowledge.
The concept of procedural knowledge is also widely used in mathematics educational researches. The well-influential definition of procedural knowledge in this domain comes from the introductory chapter by Hiebert and Lefevre (1986) of the seminal book "Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics", in which they divided procedural knowledge into two categories. The first one is a familiarity with the individual symbols of the system and with the syntactic conventions for acceptable configurations of symbols. The second one consists of rules or procedures of solving mathematical problems. In other words, they define procedural knowledge as knowledge of the syntax, steps conventions and rules for manipulating symbols. Many of the procedures that students possess probably are chains of prescriptions for manipulating symbols. In their definition, procedural knowledge includes algorithms, which means if one executes the procedural steps in a predetermined order and without errors, one is guaranteed to get the solutions, but not includes heuristics, which are abstract, sophisticated and deep procedures knowledge that are tremendously powerful assets in problem solving. Therefore, Star (2005) proposed a reconceptualization of procedural knowledge, suggesting that it can be either superficial, like ones mentioned in Hiebert and Lefevre (1986), or deep. Deep procedural knowledge is associated with comprehension, flexibility and critical judgement. For example, the goals and subgoals of steps, the environment or type of situation for certain procedure, and the constraints imposed upon the procedure by the environment. Research on procedural flexibility development indicates flexibility as an indicator for deep procedural knowledge. Individuals with superficial procedural knowledge can only use standard technique, which might lead to low efficiency solutions and probably inability to solve novel questions. However, more flexible solvers, with a deep procedural knowledge, can navigate their way through domain, using techniques other than ones that are over-practiced, and find the best match solutions for different conditions and goals. Star, J. R. (2013).
However, on certain occasions, procedural and declarative knowledge can be acquired independently. Research with amnesiac patients found that they can learn motor skills without the ability to recollect the episodes in which they learned them. The research also found that the patients learned and retained the ability to read mirror-reversed words efficiently, yet were severely impaired in recognizing those words. This research gives evidence about the neurological differences between procedural and declarative knowledge. Researchers also found that some normal subjects, like amnesiac patients, showed substantial procedural learning in the absence of explicit declarative knowledge. Even though declarative knowledge may influence performance on a procedural task, procedural and declarative knowledge may be acquired separately and one does not need to have knowledge of one type in order to build the other type. The influence of declarative knowledge may be due to the facilitation of a process of pathway activation that is outside of conscious awareness. If the prime is highly predictive of the target, the amount of facilitation is increased because of an active, conscious, attentional effect that is superimposed on the pathway activation. Therefore, if and when subjects develop explicit declarative knowledge of procedure, they can use this knowledge to form attentional expectancies regarding the next item in this procedure.
As for process of behavior plan forming, Rosenhaum et al. (2007) proposed that plans are not formed from scratch for each successive movement sequence but instead are formed by making whatever changes are needed to distinguish the movement sequence to be performed next from the movement sequence that has just been performed. There are evidences found that motor planning occurs by changing features of successively needed motor plans. Also, Rosenhaum et al. (2007) found that even single movements appear to be controlled with hierarchically organized plans, with starting and goal postures at the top level and intermediate states comprising the transition from the starting to the goal at the lower level.
Evidence from mathematics learning research supports the idea that conceptual understanding plays a role in generation and adoption of procedures. Children with greater conceptual understanding tend to have greater procedural skill. Conceptual understanding precedes procedural skill. Instruction about concepts as well as procedures can lead to increased procedural skill. And increasing conceptual knowledge leads to procedure generation. However, this relationship is not unidirectional. Conceptual and procedural knowledge develop iteratively, but the conceptual knowledge may have a greater influence on procedural knowledge than the reverse. Conceptual instruction led to increased conceptual understanding and to generation and transfer of a correct procedure. Procedural instruction led to increased conceptual understanding and to adoption, but only limited transfer, of the instructed procedure.
Ordinarily, we would not say that one who is able to recognize a face as attractive is one who knows how to recognize a face as attractive. One knows how to recognize faces as attractive no more than one knows how to recognize certain arrangements of Lepton, Quark, etc. as tables. Recognizing faces as attractive, like recognizing certain arrangements of leptons, quarks, etc. as tables, is simply something that one does, or is able to do. It is, therefore, an instance of procedural knowledge, but it is not an instance of know-how. In many cases, both forms of knowledge are subconscious.
For instance, research by cognitive psychologist Pawel Lewicki has shown that procedural knowledge can be acquired by subconscious processing of information about covariations.Lewicki, Paul, Hill, Thomas, & Czyzewska, Maria (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information. American Psychologist, 47, 796-801
One advantage of procedural knowledge is that it can involve more , such as hands-on experience, practice at solving problems, understanding of the limitations of a specific solution, etc. Thus procedural knowledge can frequently eclipse theory.
One limitation of procedural knowledge is its job-dependent nature. As a result, it tends to be less general than declarative knowledge. For example, a computer expert might have knowledge about a computer algorithm in multiple languages, or in pseudo-code, but a Visual Basic programmer might know only about a specific implementation of that algorithm, written in Visual Basic. Thus the 'hands-on' expertise and experience of the Visual Basic programmer might be of commercial value only to Microsoft job-shops, for example.
Know-how can be defined as confidentially held, or better, closely held information in the form of unpatented inventions, formulae, designs, drawings, procedures and methods, together with accumulated skills and experience in the hands of a licensor firm's professional personnel which could assist a transferee/licensee of the object product in its manufacture and use and bring to it a competitive advantage. It can be further supported with privately maintained expert knowledge on the operation, maintenance, use/application of the object product and of its sale, usage or disposition.
The inherent proprietary value of know-how is embedded in the legal protection afforded to trade secrets in general law, particularly, case law.Licensing Guide for Developing Countries, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva, 1977, Know-how, in short, is private intellectual property which can be said to be a form of precursor to other intellectual property rights. The trade secret law varies from country to country, unlike the case for patents, trademarks and copyright for which there are formal conventions through which subscribing countries grant the same protection to the property as the others; examples of which are the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), under United Nations, a supportive organization designed "to encourage creative activity, and to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world".
The World Trade Organization defined a trade secret by the following criteria:
For purposes of illustration, the following may be a provision in a license agreement serving to define know-how:-
The initial need for disclosure is due to the requirement of a licensee firm to know what is the specific, unique, or general content of the know-how that a licensor firm possesses that promises value to the licensee on entering into a contract. Disclosure also aids the potential licensee in selecting among competitive offers, if any. Such disclosures are made by licensors only under non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements in which there are express undertakings that should the ultimate license not materialize, the firm to whom the disclosure is made will not reveal, or by any manner apply, any part of the disclosed knowledge which is not in the public domain or previously known to the firm receiving the information.
Non-disclosure agreements are undertaken by those who receive confidential information from the licensee, relating to licensed know-how, so as to perform their tasks. Among them are the personnel of engineering firms who construct the plant for the licensee or those who are key employees of the licensee who have detailed access to disclosed data, etc. to administer their functions in operating the know-how-based plant. These are also in the nature of confidentiality agreements and carry the definition of know-how, in full or truncated part, on a need-to-know basis.
It is sometimes unclear what forms of "know how" that was divulged to an employee in order to carry out their functions and then becomes their own knowledge rather than a secret of their previous employer. Some employers will specify in their employment contracts that a grace period will apply to know how that starts when a person leaves them as an employee.
Specifying exactly what information this includes would increase the likelihood of it being upheld in court in the event of a breach, i.e. saying "when your employment contract is terminated, you must keep all information about your previous employment with us secret for four years" would be difficult to support because that person has to be able to use the skills and knowledge they learnt to gain employment elsewhere.
|
|
