Tacit knowledge in professional education: a problem statement

Introduction. Contemporary theories of professional education are dominated by approaches focused on operationalisable and standardisable knowledge and competencies. However, a substantial part of professional experience – including subtle modes of action, criteria for practical judgement, and mechanisms for transmitting mastery – is rooted in a different type of knowledge. Tacit, unarticulated knowledge constitutes the essential core of professional mastery, yet it remains almost invisible within professional education theory. This layer of knowledge – the foundation of the highest level of professional qualification – remains insufficiently developed in didactics. This shortcoming becomes particularly problematic in the context of digitalisation, the spread of artificial intelligence, the strengthening of practice-oriented learning, and the development of higher education, continuing professional education, and corporate universities. Aim. The present study aims to develop a problem framework for studying tacit knowledge in professional education, considering it as a distinct layer of educational content, professional experience, and educational practice. Methodology and research methods. This problem-oriented analytical review examines Russian- and English-language publications from 1990 to 2026 on tacit knowledge (T-knowledge), professional education, higher education, corporate education, mentoring, the SECI model, and artificial intelligence (AI) in education, alongside the author’s own materials on the didactic design of corporate education. The analytical framework integrates M. Polanyi’s phenomenological-epistemological tradition with the organisational-epistemological SECI model and the concept of Ba. A comparative analysis was conducted across four areas of professional education: medical, engineering, management and teacher education, and digital/AI-mediated contexts. Results and scientific novelty. This study demonstrates that the problem of tacit knowledge in professional education encompasses three interrelated dimensions: ontological – as an unarticulated layer of professional experience and subject content; didactic – as a resource for the design, implementation, and learning in professional education; and institutional – as a process of transmission, loss, accumulation, and externalisation within university and corporate environments. Six principal formats for incorporating tacit knowledge into professional education are identified: participation in professionally meaningful activities, mentoring, observation of expert practice, analysis of critical incidents, reflective partial articulation of experience, and communities of practice. For each format, the didactic functions, conditions for effective implementation, and associated risks are described. The main promising avenues for didactic research into tacit knowledge are outlined: investigating the possibilities of externalising tacit knowledge in digital environments and through generative AI; studying mentoring as a mechanism for transmitting the tacit components of professional mastery; adapting the SECI model and the concept of Ba to educational organisations; and examining barriers to the articulation of professional experience. A new didactic principle of professional education is proposed: the principle of incorporating tacit knowledge into the content of professional education and the learning process. An operational expression of this principle, its normative content, and indicators for its implementation in programmes, the learning process, assessment, and teacher training are provided. Tacit knowledge is thus transferred from the periphery of the philosophy of cognition and corporate knowledge management practice into the field of professional education didactics. It is proposed that tacit knowledge be regarded not only as a characteristic of an individual teacher’s mastery but also as a component of the content of professional education and as an object of didactic analysis within a unified field of higher and corporate education. Practical significance. The results can be utilised in the development of vocational and continuing professional education programmes, mentoring models, teacher and expert development initiatives, and in the design of tools for articulating experience within digital educational environments.

1. Polanyi M. Lichnostnoe znanie. Na puti k postkriticheskoi filosofii = Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Moscow: Publishing House Progress; 1995. 344 p. (In Russ.)

2. Mitchell V.W., Harvey W.S., Wood G. Where does all the ‘know how’ go? The role of tacit knowledge in research impact. Higher Education Research & Development. 2022;41(5):1664–1678. doi:10.1080/07294360.2021.1937066

3. Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995. 304 p.

4. Alves R.B.C., Pinheiro P. Factors influencing tacit knowledge sharing in research groups in higher education institutions. Administrative Sciences. 2022;12(3):89. doi:10.3390/admsci12030089

5. Romanov E.V. The phenomenon of loss of tacit knowledge in higher education: causes and consequences. Part II. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2019;21(5):61–85. (In Russ.) doi:10.17853/1994-5639-2019-5-62-86

6. Vogel C., Großer B., Baumöl U., Bastiaens T.J. Knowledge in virtual university learning environments. In: Proceedings of the International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International Conference on Mobile Learning; April 14–16, 2018; Lisbon, Portugal. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED590353

7. Nonaka I., Konno N. The concept of “Ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review. 1998;40(3):40–54. doi:10.2307/41165942

8. McLeod P.J., Steinert Y., Meagher T., Schuwirth L., Tabatabai D., McLeod A.H. The acquisition of tacit knowledge in medical education: learning by doing. Medical Education. 2006;40(2):146–149. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02370.x

9. Heiberg Engel P.J. Tacit knowledge and visual expertise in medical diagnostic reasoning: implications for medical education. Medical Teacher. 2008;30(7):e184–e188. doi:10.1080/01421590802144260

10. Wylie C.D., Kim S.J. Socialization, tacit knowledge, and conceptions of ‘experience’ among engineers. Engineering Studies. 2022;14(1):17–33. doi:10.1080/19378629.2022.2037617

11. Song C., Du L., Yan Y., Xu W., Li J., Li Y., Ma J. The research of tacit knowledge transfer model for applied university education. In: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Information Education and Artificial Intelligence (ICIEAI ’23); December 22–24, 2023; Xiamen, China. New York: ACM; 2023:61–66. doi:10.1145/3660043.3660054

12. Klarin M.V. Didactic design in corporate education: models, programs, projects. Pedagogika = Pedagogy. 2016;(1):81–89. (In Russ.)

13. Zheyu L., Weijin C., Jihui Z., Yuan W., Ghani U., Zhai X. Investigating the influence of tacit knowledge transformation approach on students’ learning ability. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:647729. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647729

14. Xu J., Wei X., Hisrich R.D., Yu M., Li X. Mentoring and tacit knowledge transfer in novice teachers from Chinese middle schools: mediating effect of job crafting. Frontiers in Education. 2022;7:772638. doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.772638

15. Ayar M.C., Yalvac B. An ethnographic study of an engineering community: mentoring as a tacit rule and its implications for how people learn. Journal of Engineering Education. 2022;111(2):400–419. doi:10.1002/jee.20454

16. Oskam J.I.L.J. Difficulties of Tacit Knowledge Transfer in the Succession Process of Owner-Managers: Master Thesis Strategic Management. Tilburg: Tilburg School of Economics and Management; 2024. 59 p. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=178914

17. Klarin M. Conceptual challenges in understanding innovative education in organizational context. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE). 2016;4(1):67–71. doi:10.5937/IJCRSEE1601067K

18. Henderson C., Callahan K. SECI model of knowledge creation: socialization, externalization, combination, internalization. Accelerating Systemic Change Network. 2023. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://ascnhighered.org/ASCN/change_theories/collection/seci.html

19. Farnese M.L., Barbieri B., Chirumbolo A., Patriotta G. Managing knowledge in organizations: a Nonaka’s SECI model operationalization. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:2730. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02730

20. Nonaka I., Toyama R. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2003;1(1):2–10. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500001

21. Nonaka I., Toyama R. SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning. 2000;33(1):5–34. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6

22. Creplet F. The concept of “ba”: a new path in the study of knowledge in firms. European Journal of Economic and Social Systems. 2000;14(4):365–379. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://ejess.edpsciences.org/articles/ejess/pdf/2000/04/creplet.pdf

23. Basten D., Haamann T. Approaches for organizational learning: a literature review. SAGE Open. 2018;8(3):1–20. doi:10.1177/2158244018794224

24. Takeuchi H., Shibata T., eds. Japan, Moving Toward a More Advanced Knowledge Economy. Volume 2: Advanced Knowledge-Creating Companies. Washington (DC): World Bank Institute; 2006. 104 p. (WBI Development Studies). Accessed July 28, 2026. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/884211468260931314/pdf/372610v20JP0Kn1y01OFFICIAL0USE0ONY1.pdf

25. Bratianu C. A critical analysis of Nonaka’s model of knowledge dynamics. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. 2010;8(2):193–200. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256657754

26. Firoozi N., Hatami A.S.N. Knowledge creation through self-(de)construction: self-transcendent in knowledge spiral in “Ba”. Knowledge and Process Management. 2025;32(3):146–156. doi:10.1002/kpm.1802

27. Mpungose B.P., Phaladi M.P., Chisita C.T. Barriers to the effective transfer and retention of tacit knowledge within postgraduate supervision in South African higher education institutions. Education Sciences. 2026;16(2):336. doi:10.3390/educsci16020336

28. Shahzad F., Chilba S., Arslan A. Tacit knowledge exchange among senior management educators: a qualitative study. The International Journal of Management Education. 2024;22(2):100973. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100973

29. Boadu F., Xie Y., Du Y.-F., Dwomo-Fokuo E. MNEs subsidiary training and development and firm innovative performance: the moderating effects of tacit and explicit knowledge received from headquarters. Sustainability. 2018;10(11):4208. doi:10.3390/su10114208

30. O’Sullivan P., Seppälä S., Feller J. Towards scaling expertise with generative AI: design principles for governing AI-mediated knowledge capture and transfer. Journal of Decision Systems. 2026;35(1). doi:10.1080/12460125.2026.2669855

31. Uchihira N. Tacit knowledge management with generative AI: proposal of the GenAI SECI model. 2026. 10 p. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21866

32. Böhm K., Durst S. Knowledge management in the age of generative artificial intelligence – from SECI to GRAI. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2026;56(1):106–121. doi:10.1108/VJIKMS-10-2024-0357

33. Tarasyuk V., Müller-Czygan G. Making tacit knowledge available: generative AI as a bridge between human expertise and explainable AI systems. Annals of Social Sciences & Management Studies. 2025;12(2):555835. doi:10.19080/ASM.2025.12.555835

34. Oztok M. Tacit knowledge in online learning: community, identity, and social capital. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2013;22(1):21–36. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ996910

35. Tee M.Y., Karney D. Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2010;5(4):385–413. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ903413

36. Djiffouet K., Ludovic A. An Investigation into the Acquisition of Tacit Knowledge in E-Learning Environments: An Experimental Study. Doctoral thesis. Carmarthen: University of Wales Trinity Saint David; 2020. 315 p. Accessed July 28, 2026. https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/1138/

37. Wu J., Shang S. Modelling tacit knowledge transfer in MOOCs: simulations on the transfer process. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Transactions. 2019;26(3):126–135. doi:10.33430/V26N-3THIE-2018-0036

38. Lane A.S., Roberts C. Contextualised reflective competence: a new learning model promoting reflective practice for clinical training. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1):71. doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03112-4