Cerrahi Alet Üretiminde Duyusal Rejim ve Kalibrasyon: Usta-Çırak Etkileşimlerinde Örtük Bilgi

Abstract

Bu makale Samsun sahasından elde edilen bulgulara dayanarak, cerrahi alet üretiminde usta-çırak etkileşimi yoluyla örtük bilginin nasıl edinilip aktarıldığını incelemektedir. Çalışma, usta-çırak etkileşiminde gözlem-taklit-tekrar-kalibrasyon zincirini başat aktarım mekanizmaları olarak kavramsallaştırırken; hikâye anlatımını, koordinasyonun ve kalite sürekliliğinin sağlanmasını destekleyen tamamlayıcı bir pratik olarak konumlandırmaktadır. Yöntem olarak yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, katılımcı gözlem ve video-etnografi birlikte kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, atölyede dokunsal geri bildirim, işitsel ritim ve görsel kontrolün hizalanmasıyla kurulan bir duyusal rejim üzerinden bedenleşmiş öğrenmenin gerçekleştiğini; okuldan işyerine geçişte yazılı/kural temelli şemaların bedenleşmiş şemalara dönüştüğünü göstermektedir. Ayrıca çalışma, örgütsel öğrenme yazınına, örtük bilgiyi yalnızca bir içerik olarak değil, aynı zamanda işin icrası sırasında kalibre edilen ilişkisel bir süreç olarak ele alan bir çerçeve önermektedir.

Keywords

• Örtük Bilgi
• Usta-Çırak Etkileşimi
• Duyusal Rejim
• İnovasyon Kümelenme
• Cerrahi Alet Üretimi

Supporting Institution

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/ German Research Foundation (DFG)

Project Number

551920228

Ethical Statement

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) tarafından finanse edilen MediCluster araştırma projesi, 21 Temmuz 2025 tarihinde Max Weber Vakfı Etik Komitesi tarafından incelenmiş ve onaylanmıştır. Komite, insan verileriyle çalışmaya ilişkin tüm etik konuların en yüksek etik standartlara göre belirlenmesi ve ele alınmasını onaylamıştır. Onay Referansı: 2025-03 MediCluster Sahinol OII.

Thanks

Samsun’daki saha çalışmamıza verdikleri değerli destek için başta Bahadır ve Şahinol aileleri olmak üzere tüm katkı sunanlara içtenlikle teşekkür ederiz. Samsun’da görüşmelerimize zaman ayıran ve deneyimlerini paylaşan tüm katılımcılara minnettarız. Gülşah Başkavak'ın desteğiyle yapılan görüşmeler ve saha araştırması; kendisine de ayrıca teşekkür ederiz. Bu makaleye sundukları değerli görüş ve yorumları için Gülşah Başkavak’a ve Uğur Kocager’e teşekkür ederiz. Ayrıca, makalenin niteliğini önemli ölçüde artıran dikkatli değerlendirmeleri ve yapıcı geri bildirimleri için hakemlere teşekkür ederiz. Bu çalışma, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Alman Araştırma Topluluğu) tarafından finanse edilmiştir – Proje Numarası: 551920228. Araştırma, Max Weber Vakfı’na bağlı Orient-Institut Istanbul bünyesinde yürütülmüştür.

Sensory Regime and Calibration in Surgical Instrument Manufacturing: Tacit Knowledge in Master–Apprentice Interactions

Abstract

This article draws on fieldwork conducted in Samsun to examine how tacit knowledge is acquired and transmitted through master–apprentice interaction in the production of surgical instruments. The study conceptualizes the observation-imitation-repetition-calibration chain as a primary mechanism of transmission, while positioning storytelling as a complementary practice that supports coordination and the continuity of quality. Methodologically, the study combines semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and video-ethnography. The findings indicate that embodied learning occurs through a sensory regime established by the alignment of tactile feedback, auditory rhythm, and visual control within the workshop, and that during the transition from school to workplace, written and rule-based schemes are transformed into embodied ones. Furthermore, the study contributes to the literature on organizational learning by proposing a framework that treats tacit knowledge not merely as transferable content but as a relational process calibrated through practice.

Keywords

• Tacit Knowledge
• Master–Apprentice Interaction
• Sensory Regime
• Innovation Cluster
• Surgical Instrument Manufacturing

Supporting Institution

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/ German Research Foundation (DFG)

Project Number

551920228

Ethical Statement

The MediCluster research project, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), was reviewed and approved by the Max Weber Foundation Ethics Committee on July 21, 2025. The Committee approved that all ethical issues related to working with human data were determined and addressed according to the highest ethical standards. Approval Reference: 2025-03 MediCluster Sahinol OII.

Thanks

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to everyone who supported our fieldwork in Samsun, especially the Bahadır and Şahinol families. We are grateful to all participants who took time for our interviews in Samsun and shared their experiences. We would also like to thank Gülşah Başkavak for her support in co-conducting the interviews and field research. We would like to thank Gülşah Başkavak and Uğur Kocager for their valuable insights and comments on this article. We also thank the reviewers for their thoughtful engagement and constructive feedback, which significantly improved the quality of this article. This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project Number: 551920228. The research was conducted at the Orient-Institut Istanbul, affiliated with the Max Weber Foundation.

References

1. Al-Zoubi, M. O., Masa’deh, R. E., & Twaissi, N. (2025). Exploring the relationship among structured-on-the job training, mentoring, job rotation, work environment factors and tacit knowledge transfer. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 55(1), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2022-0199
2. Alonso, D. A., & Kok, S. (2021). Knowledge and the family firm through generations: A knowledge-based approach in various geographic contexts. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 19(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1762254
3. Andersson, J., & Östman, L. (2015). A transactional way of analysing the learning of “tacit knowledge”. Interchange, 46(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9252-8
4. Armbrecht, F. R., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., Farris, G. F., Friga, P. N., Hartz, C. A., McIlvaine, M. E., Postle, S. R., & Whitwell, G. E. (2001). Knowledge management in research and development. Research-Technology Management, 44(4), 28–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671438
5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
6. Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64–76.
7. Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312–330. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4135139
8. Bell, P. (2001). Content analysis of visual image. In T. Van Leewen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), The handbook of visual analysis (pp. 10–34).

9. Bhardwaj, M., & Monin, J. (2006). Tacit to explicit: An interplay shaping organization knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 72–85.
10. Boamah, F. A., Jianhua, Z., Ziao, C., & Horbanenko, O. (2023). An empirical study on the sharing of tacit knowledge by construction project workers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 21(6), 1039–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2105757
11. Bohnsack, R. (2009). The interpretation of pictures and the documentary method. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 34(2), 296–321.
12. Brockmann, E. N., & Anthony, W. P. (2002). Tacit knowledge and strategic decision making. Group & Organization Management, 27(4), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102238356
13. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
14. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University.
15. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (Vol. I). Blackwell Publishing.
16. Chan, S. (2015). Apprentices’ learning of occupationally informed practical judgment. Vocations and Learning, 8(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-015-9134-3
17. Chan, S. (2017). The reciprocity of “imitative learning” through apprenticeship. Vocations and Learning, 10(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-017-9175-x
18. Collins, H. (2019). Tacit and explicit knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
19. Connell, N. A. D., Klein, J. H., & Meyer, E. (2004). Narrative approaches to the transfer of organisational knowledge. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2(3), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500034
20. Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.
21. Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.
22. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
23. Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88.
24. Ding, W., Aoyama, A., & Choi, E. (2020). An approach to the diffusion of tacit knowledge: Learning from imitation to creation. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 11(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKMS.2020.106276
25. Edvardsson, I. R. (2006). Knowledge management in SMEs: The case of Icelandic firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(4), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500111
26. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.
27. Goffin, K., Koners, U., Baxter, D., & Van Der Hoven, C. (2010). Managing lessons learned and tacit knowledge in new product development. Research-Technology Management, 53(4), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2010.11657639
28. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. Free Press.
29. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 660–633.
30. Gourlay, S. (2006). Towards conceptual clarity for “tacit knowledge”: A review of empirical studies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500082
31. Grant, E. B., & Gregory, M. J. (1997). Tacit knowledge, the life cycle and international manufacturing transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329708524276
32. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
33. Grasseni, C. (2010). Skilled visions: Between apprenticeship and standards. Berghahn Books.
34. Hadjimichael, D., Ribeiro, R., & Tsoukas, H. (2024). How does embodiment enable the acquisition of tacit knowledge in organizations? From Polanyi to Merleau-Ponty. Organization Studies, 45(4), 545–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241228374
35. Han, J. H., Lee, J., & Yoon, B. S. (2008). An empirical study on the network properties of innovation in clusters: The social capital aspect. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 16(2), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2008.9668656
36. Han, T.-S., Chen, H.-H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: Mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(12), 2218–2233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.509625
37. Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., & Lee, H. (2016). What drives employees to share their tacit knowledge in practice? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.32
38. Henriksen, B., & Rolstadås, A. (2010). Knowledge and manufacturing strategy–How different manufacturing paradigms have different requirements to knowledge: Examples from the automotive industry. International Journal of Production Research, 48(8), 2413–2430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540902744792
39. Herlina, M. G., Budiansyah, M. A., Janah, F. R., & Adryana, D. Q. P. (2024). Unlocking employee innovative behaviour: Exploring the power of transformational leadership and tacit knowledge sharing among Indonesian white-collar workers. Economics and Culture, 21(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.2478/jec-2024-0003
40. Howells, J. (1996). Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329608524237
41. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge.
42. Iqbal, A., Nazir, T., & Ahmad, M. S. (2023). Unraveling the relationship between workplace dignity and employees’ tacit knowledge sharing: The role of proactive motivation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(10), 2754–2778. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0778
43. Johnson, T. L., Fletcher, S. R., Baker, W., & Charles, R. L. (2019). How and why we need to capture tacit knowledge in manufacturing: Case studies of visual inspection. Applied Ergonomics, 74, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.016
44. Klein, J. H. (2008). Some directions for research in knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500159
45. Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab/Hans, J., & Soeffner, G. (2012). Video analysis: Methodology and methods (3rd ed.). Peter Lang.
46. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
47. Kümbetoğlu, B. (2017). Sosyolojide ve antropolojide niteliksel yöntem ve araştırma. Bağlam Yayıncılık.
48. Lara, F., Daniel, P. M., & Devece, C. A. (2012). How to improve organisational results through knowledge management in knowledge-intensive business services. The Service Industries Journal, 32(11), 1853–1863. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.574283
49. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
50. LeCounte, J. F. (2022). Founder-CEOs: Succession planning for the success, growth, and legacy of family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(3), 616–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1725814
51. Letonja, M., & Duh, M. (2016). Knowledge transfer in family businesses and its effects on the innovativeness of the next family generation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2015.25
52. Marchand, T. H. J. (2008). Muscles, morals and mind: Craft apprenticeship and the formation of person. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(3), 245–271.
53. Morgner, C., Hazel, S., Schneider, J., & Tischler, V. (2019). Conduct in dementia: Video analysis of arts interventions. Sociological Research Online, 24(4), 514–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780419835564
54. Muskat, B., & Zehrer, A. (2017). A power perspective on knowledge transfer in internal succession of small family businesses. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 29(5), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2017.1345208
55. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
56. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
57. Orr, J. E. (1990). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Cornell University.
58. Öncüler Yayalar, E., & Şahinol, M. (2023). Bilim ve teknoloji çalışmaları. İçinde B. Ağın & Z. G. Yılmaz (Ed.), Beşerî bilimlerin 50 rengi: Çevreci, dijital, tıbbi ve posthüman sesler (ss. 85–92). Kapadokya Üniversitesi Yayınları.
59. Özyurt, E. M., & Erda, I. S. (2024). Yenilikçi ağ modelleri kapsamında yerli tıbbi cihaz tasarım süreçlerinde endüstriyel tasarımın rol. Journal of Awareness, 9(2), 215–236.
60. Park, J., Chae, H., & Choi, J. N. (2017). The need for status as a hidden motive of knowledge-sharing behavior: An application of costly signaling theory. Human Performance, 30(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1263636
61. Pérez‐Luño, A., Patrick, S., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2016). Small and medium‐sized enterprise’s entrepreneurial versus market orientation and the creation of tacit knowledge. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12144
62. Perraton, J., & Tarrant, I. (2007). What does tacit knowledge actually explain? Journal of Economic Methodology, 14(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780701562559
63. Podgórski, D. (2010). The use of tacit knowledge in occupational safety and health management systems. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 16(3), 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2010.11076845
64. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Routledge.
65. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Routledge.
66. Roth, W. M., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the-classroom: A case study of teacher development through coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00027-X
67. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
68. Simmel, G. (1910). How is society possible? American Journal of Sociology, 16(3), 372–391.
69. Slusser, B. (2024). Creativity, culture, and human resource management. İçinde Examining creativity in the workplace: Applying Polanyi’s theory of tacit knowledge to maximize fulfillment at work (ss. 175–187). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003322894-12
70. Starks, A. (2013). The forthcoming generational workforce transition and rethinking organizational knowledge transfer. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2013.810494
71. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. D. E. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge University Press.
72. Şahinol, M. (2016). Das techno-zerebrale Subjekt: Zur Symbiose von Mensch und Maschine in den Neurowissenschaften. transcript Verlag.
73. Şahinol, M. (2025a). Bakımın maddileşmesi: Çocuklar, 3D baskılı protezler ve katılımcı tasarım. ODİTORYUM Eleştirel Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(6), 71–93.
74. Şahinol, M. (2025b). Somatechnische Erfahrungen: Ethnographische Gespräche mit Kindern mit Prothesen aus dem 3D-Drucker. İçinde R. Stock, C. Meier zu Verl, M. Şahinol, M. Spöhrer, A. Volmar, A. Wagenknecht, & A.-L. Wiechern (Ed.), Dis/Ability und digitale Medien. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-46724-1_9
75. Şahinol, M., & Başkavak, G. (2021). Türkiye’de çekişmeli bedenlere giriş. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18490/sosars.911124
76. Tian, A. Y., Ahammad, M. F., Tarba, S. Y., Pereira, V., Arslan, A., & Khan, Z. (2021). Investigating employee and organizational performance in a cross-border acquisition: A case of withdrawal behavior. Human Resource Management, 60(5), 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22058
77. Uçarol, A. B. (2025). Tacit knowledge in the surgical instrument manufacturing process. https://doi.org/10.58079/14lmz
78. Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130.
79. Wood, S. (1989). The Japanese management model: Tacit skills in shop floor participation. Work and Occupations, 16(4), 446–460.
80. Wylie, C. D. (2019). Socialization through stories of disaster in engineering laboratories. Social Studies of Science, 49(6), 817–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719880266