Almost all the scientific fields transfer heritage knowledge on their own way because science itself is a mean of heritage. Knowledge management gives some models and methods for understanding how intangible elements of our culture and heritage can be transferred, including that knowledge which let us understand, respect, and appreciate the tangible and intangible heritage elements. The framework this chapter offers the reader the attributes of knowledge communities, as well as the explanation of the challenges heritage communication have to face: how to keep alive the communication channels and processes. Disappearance of languages, forgotten code and symbol systems, low capacity, and motivation for acceptance of new knowledge, the natural process of forgetting, as well as the authentication of the knowledge owner and the knowledge to be shared are just a few to be discussed to make the readers understood how heritage communication can be effective and efficient.
TopIntroduction
Science is a significant contributor to heritage knowledge across various fields. Knowledge management offers models and methods to understand how intangible cultural elements and heritage can be transferred. The goal of this study is to present the general concept and methodologies of knowledge management which can be applied in all areas and levels of heritage knowledge transfer and heritage communication. It highlights some significant challenges following the logic and process steps of a general communication model. These issues should be addressed to ensure effective and efficient heritage communication. Before discussing them, it is worth to overview some fundamental attributes of the term ‘knowledge’ itself and its relation to heritage.
Throughout the last 2500 years of history, there have been plenty of authors presenting definitions of knowledge. Confucius (Tsai, 214), Plato (Copleston, 1993; Ch. XIX), Dewey and Bentley (1949), Polanyi (1966), Drucker (1959), Zeleny (1987), Ackoff (1989), Nonaka (1991), Wiig (1993), Davenport and Prusack (1998), Zins (2007), Wallace (2007) and Rowley (2007) are just some among the ones presenting significant points of view about this term. Although there are many aspects of knowledge, and numerous commonly linked terms, such as understanding, intelligence, experience, information and wisdom could have been discussed, this study does not intend to introduce deeper the map of connected terminology, which is many times overlapping. (Wallace, 2007, Rowley, 2007; Psuf10, 2014; Z. Karvalics, 2015)
However, the one most applicable of definitions for heritage point of view was given by Sveiby (1997:37) interpreting knowledge as the ability to act, solve problems, impact processes, recall and present something or create something new. Polanyi recognized two categories of knowledge: explicit and tacit. (Polanyi, 1966) The main difference between them is the ease by which they can be expressed and transferred. Explicit, or codified or formal knowledge can be described, expressed, and transferred using language, symbols, drawings, music, etc. This type of knowledge can be taught through formal learning processes and is often transferable even without the presence of a teacher, as long as the learner understands the necessary elements of the social and technical context. However, tacit knowledge is intangible and can only be transferred through a learning-by-doing process, where the master and the student work together for an extended period of time, typically through informal education. Thus, tacit knowledge can only be stored in human minds, making the preservation and the transfer challenging.