Baiyin Yang

http://www.paper.edu.cn
Theory and Conceptual Articles
10.1177/1534484303254027
Human Resource Development Review / June 2003
Yang / HOLISTIC THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND ADULT LEARNING

ARTICLE

Toward a Holistic Theory of
Knowledge and Adult Learning
BAIYIN YANG
University of Minnesota
This article proposes a holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning.
The theory posits that knowledge consists of three indivisible facets—
explicit, implicit, and emancipatory knowledge, and that each of the
knowledge facets consists of three layers—foundation, manifestation, and
orientation. The holistic theory calls for a dialectical perspective about
the dynamic relationships among the three facets to better understand
learning. Three contemporary paradigms of knowledge and learning are
examined under the perspective of the holistic theory.
Keywords: adult learning; emancipatory knowledge; holistic theory;
implicit knowledge; knowledge management; organizational
learning; tacit knowledge

To acknowledge what is known as known, and what is not known as not
known is knowledge.
—Confucius

The concepts of knowledge and learning can be traced back to more than
2 thousand years ago in Confucius time. These two concepts are playing
increasingly significant roles in the modern age as knowledge has become
one of the crucial resources for wealth, and learning becomes an integrative
component of the workplace. Learning is one of the key concepts in the
fields of adult education and human resource development (HRD), and
facilitating learning for individuals and organizations is one of the key roles
for HRD professionals. After analyzing many different definitions of HRD,
Gilley and Maycunich (2000) concluded that the field consists of three professional practice domains: organizational learning, performance, and
change. Consequently, the principles of learning continue to be a central
topic of the field (Swanson & Holton, 2001).
Although adult learning has been defined in a variety of ways, most theorists have examined the concept of learning at the individual level. For examHuman Resource Development Review Vol. 2, No. 2 June 2003 106-129
DOI: 10.1177/1534484303254027
© 2003 Sage Publications

转载

中国科技论文在线



107

ple, learning has been defined as “relatively permanent change in behavior,
cognition, or affect that occur as a result of one’s interaction with the environment” (DeSimone, Werner, & Harris, 2002, p. 75). Because learning is
central to both adult education and HRD, a number of theories and models of
learning and teaching can be found in the literature. These models of learning and teaching are rooted in various epistemic beliefs (Pratt, 1998). Consequently, we need to examine the nature of knowledge to better understand
the process of learning and facilitation of adult and organizational learning.
According to Mezirow (1996), there are three major approaches to the
nature of knowledge that have dominated the adult learning literature. The first
approach is the Western rational tradition that constitutes an objective paradigm of learning. The objectivist paradigm, or sometimes called empiricalanalytic paradigm, encompasses a set of assumptions about reality and
knowledge. Reality is believed to exist independently of mental representations of the world, and knowledge is thought to be objective. In this paradigm, “educational process is to transmit accurate representations of the
real world, ideally established as such by scientific test” (p. 59). The second
approach is the interpretist paradigm. This paradigm views knowledge as
subjective and constructed from one’s experience within the frame of prior
interpretation. Learning is a function of life and systems of language. The
third approach, critical theory, views learning as a transformational process.
Following Habermas (1971, 1984), scholars in adult education argued that
the knowledge produced from the empirical–analytic tradition served the
interests of professionalization and control, and that these interests are not
emancipatory (Thompson & Schield, 1996; Wilson, 1993). From the perspective of critical theory, it is important to examine the power relationships
in which knowledge is produced and whose interests are served.
The three major approaches to knowledge (i.e., empirical–analytic, interpretive, and critical) have typified efforts to define the concept of knowledge from different perspectives. These perspectives have been shaped by
the examination of a limited consideration of the nature of knowledge. In
spite of the intense debates among scholars about the three perspectives, little has been focused on how to bring about an integration of these different
approaches (Merriam, 1991). Very few efforts have been made to explore
the nature of knowledge and relationships among the three perspectives.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning by bridging the previously unconnected areas of
knowledge and learning. As it is conceptualized here, the theory posits that
knowledge consists of three indivisible facets: explicit, implicit, and
emancipatory, and that it is more important to examine the dynamic interactions among the three facets to better understand adult learning. Furthermore, the theory suggests that each of the three existing paradigms has
established its foundation on one knowledge facet and fails to recognize

108



such dynamic relationships. An integrative perspective emerges as the
result of interrelationships among three knowledge facets.

A Theoretical Framework
of Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge as a Construct Comprises Three Facets
The previously mentioned three paradigms view knowledge as something in the world, either objectively representing reality or subjectively
existing in human beings. To overcome the dichotomy of objectivity and
subjectivity, this article argues that we should take a holistic perspective. We
frequently hear a saying: “you need to look on the other side of the coin.” In
fact, there are three sides of a coin: head, tail, and edge. This analogy applies
to the concept of knowledge. Knowledge as a social construct has three facets. Knowledge is defined as human beings’ understanding about the reality
through mental correspondence, personal experience, and emotional affection with outside objects and situations. This definition of knowledge has
the following implications. First, knowledge can only be demonstrated as
human beings’ understanding of the reality. Therefore, knowledge as a
social construct does not exist in certain static state, and it is the outcome of
the interaction between human beings and the outside world. Second,
knowledge is learned and accumulated through personal and social life
experiences. Knowledge is seen as being shaped by both personal inner factors and outside environmental factors. Third, there are at least three channels that link an individual’s inner state to outside reality: mental, behavioral, and emotional processes.
The facets of knowledge are different aspects of the way in which we
know the physical, social, emotional, and spiritual world. We learn not only
through mental correspondence but also by direct personal involvement. We
also know things through our emotions. Because any knowing involves a
person or any organic entity (knower), these three knowing processes are
seen as involved and they are interrelated. Consequently, knowledge has
three distinct but interrelated facets: explicit, implicit, and emancipatory
knowledge. That is to say, knowledge facets reflect the different processes
of knowing. The explicit facet consists of the cognitive component of
knowledge that represents one’s understandings about reality. Explicit
knowledge refers to clear and certain mental apprehension that is transmittable in formal and systematic format. It is codified knowledge that identifies
true from false in the reality. It is part of the technical knowledge that
reflects one’s intentional and conscious effort to understand reality to meet
his or her individual needs. Theories, models, and formulas in textbooks are
examples of explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge itself is useful to a cer-




109

tain extent, but it fails to offer a complete picture of the concept of knowledge. It cannot capture the complexity of some ambiguous problems. For
example, when we have some health issues and need to find a medical doctor, we don’t normally pay much attention to the physician’s grade point
average (GPA) achievement in medical school. Even though a high GPA in
the professional school may indicate that the doctor performed well academically, it only shows how well the doctor may have learned content in the
domain of explicit knowledge. Equally important to us is the doctor’s professional experience and practical expertise.
The implicit or tacit facet is the behavioral component of knowledge that
denotes the learning that is not openly expressed or stated. In most cases, we
know more than we think we know (Polanyi, 1967). Implicit knowledge is
personal, context-specific familiarity, or the familiarity that has yet to be
articulated, and therefore hard to formalize and communicate. It speaks to
us if something works or not in reality based on direct observation or
involvement. Implicit knowledge usually comes from and exits in one’s
behavior, action, and accumulated experiences. However, experience itself
cannot automatically become valid implicit knowledge. Only the learning
and familiarity evolved from experience that has been confirmed can be
viewed as knowledge. Research has suggested that unconscious thoughts
and actions can be developed, received, stored, and recovered without the
involvement of conscious awareness (Dienes & Perner, 1999). Such unconscious thoughts can be viewed as implicit knowledge. Eraut (2000) identified three types of tacit knowledge in professional work: tacit understanding
of people and situations, routinized actions, and the tacit rules that underpin
intuitive decision making. Lubit (2001) categorized four types of tactic
knowledge: hard to pin down skills such as know-how, mental models, ways
of approaching problems, and organizational routines. With regard to the
previously mentioned medical case, the doctor’s professional experience
and practical expertise comprise implicit knowledge. Therefore, we want to
visit a doctor with adequate explicit and implicit knowledge. Nevertheless,
we will probably still hesitate to visit a doctor when he or she is competent in
only these areas. Equally important for most patients is a doctor’s personal
care of clients, professional integrity, and interpersonal communication
skills.
The emancipatory facet is the affective component of knowledge and is
reflected in affective reactions to the outside world. Emancipatory knowledge is emotional affection, and thus it is value-laden. It is indicated by feelings and emotions people have in relation to the objects and situations
around them. Emancipatory knowledge defines one’s view about what the
world should be, and it is the product of one’s efforts to seek freedom from
natural and social restraints. It reflects one’s internal affective and motivational states. Bornstein (1999) maintained that a comprehensive theory of

110



knowledge must incorporate motivation and feeling states in addition to
explicit and implicit knowledge. Going back to the medical case, a doctor’s
personal care of clients, professional integrity, and interpersonal communication skills precisely define his or her emancipatory knowledge in the
profession.
This holistic theory of knowledge posits that all of the three facets are
present in all adult-learning processes, even though not all of them need to
experience a change. For example, knowledge facets can be identified in a
training session for customer service professionals. Principles and techniques of enhancing customer service that have been identified by other
experts and presented in the training session constitute explicit knowledge.
The participants/practitioners in attendance bring their experiences and personal insights into the training session that illustrate their implicit knowledge of customer service. Because a trainer cannot expect every participant
to have the same perception of the training contents, implicit knowledge
also includes those individual understandings of the same concept. Lastly,
motivations for learning, personal goals and objectives, codes of professional ethics, and shared visions for the training tend to reflect participants’
efforts to free themselves from certain constraints and thus constitute
emancipatory knowledge. Consequently, the holistic theory of knowledge
and learning suggests that an effective training program involves all of the
three knowledge facets. Learning occurs when one or more facets of knowledge change.
Furthermore, the holistic theory calls for a dialectical perspective of the
three knowledge facets. On one hand, we need to acknowledge some intrinsically different characteristics of the three knowledge facets. If we examine
each of the three knowledge facets at a time, they tend to be different and
contradictory. The results will be like observing different faces of a coin. On
the other hand, we should understand the complementary nature of these
three knowledge facets. They are interacting with each other and indivisible
when we take a holistic perspective. They occur by default whether we recognize them or not. All of the three facets are necessary components of the
whole. To get a holistic perspective, the following sections will first discuss
different characteristics of the three knowledge facets and then describe the
complimentary nature of the facets.
Characteristics of the Three Knowledge Facets
The differences among the three facets of knowledge have both theoretical and practical importance. Table 1 compares the three facets of knowledge and their related characteristics. Explicit knowledge is based on the
separation of object and subject, and it serves for the interest of rationality.
Implicit knowledge is established on the interrelation between object and




111

subject, and thus it is simultaneous and analog knowledge. The emancipatory
facet is essential and vital knowledge that defines the meaning of an object
within a subject. Broadly speaking, these three facets represent three different domains of knowledge. The explicit facet is digital knowledge and represents theory. The implicit facet is analog knowledge and thus can be found in
practice. The emancipatory facet is vital knowledge and within the spiritual
domain.
These three facets are different not only in nature, function, domain, and
approach, but also in carriers, direct sources, evaluation criteria, and ultimate goals. The explicit facet is within the domain of theory and thus carried
by various formal, abstract symbols, languages, and formulas. Theories,
models, formulas, principles, textbooks, and journal articles are examples
of explicit knowledge. For instance, my 14-year-old daughter could read
most of the words and sentences with this article but had a hard time understanding the theory I am building. This was not caused by her reading ability
(i.e., to understand the explicit facet of this theory), but largely owing to her
insufficient background in two other facets. The implicit facet is within the
domain of practice and carried by informal, concrete, and vivid experiences.
Implicit knowledge was valued before modern age when people learned by
doing in authentic situations. The emancipatory facet is within the domain
of human spirit and carried by values, conscience, dignity, and ethics. These
carriers of knowledge facets can be regarded as three types of human knowledge as they serve different purposes. However, a clear separation of the
knowledge facets will result in an incomplete understanding of reality. The
explicit knowledge cannot be tested if it is separate from practice. The
explicit facet will become meaningless abstraction if it lacks a link with the
human spirit domain. The implicit facet will become insignificant practice
without the support of emancipatory knowledge. It cannot be constructed as
a powerful and robust knowledge base without the support of explicit
knowledge. For example, it was Newton who constructed a theory of gravity
though many others could have had intuitive knowledge that apples gravitate toward earth. Those who may have had implicit knowledge of gravity
would not be able to apply the theory, gravity across different situations,
without a clear articulation of the explicit knowledge.
The direct source for explicit knowledge is logic and reasoning, and it is
judged by the criteria of empirical soundness, clarity, and consistency. It is
established on what is judged to be true in the world. Explicit knowledge
seeks truth and efficiency, and it tends to search for a single solution—an
action that maximizes its satisfaction or utility. This facet of knowledge is
facilitated by analytical intelligence and measured by conventional intelligence tests. The implicit (or tacit) knowledge derives directly from practice,
experience, and familiarity. It needs to be practical and communicative
across situations. This facet of knowledge aims for reality, and it focuses on


112

TABLE 1:


Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Comparison of Three Knowledge Facets
Knowledge Facets

Characteristics

Nature
Function

Explicit

Knowledge of rationality (mind)
Sequential knowledge (there and
then)
Domain
Digital knowledge (theory)
Approach
Separation of object and subject
(objective)
Carrier
Formal, abstract symbols &
languages
Direct source
Logic, reasoning
Evaluation criteria Empirically sound, clear, and consistency (true or false)
Ability to learn
Analytical intelligence
Goal
Truth
Efficiency
Maximize
Problem nature
Structured
Related theory
Prescriptive
Research tool
Empirical-analytic
Research domain Cognition (thinking)

Implicit

Knowledge of experience (body)
Simultaneous knowledge (here
and now)
Analog knowledge (practice)
Interrelated object and subject
(subjective)
Informal, concrete, and vivid
experiences
Practice, experience
Workable, practical, communicative (workable or not)
Practical intelligence
Reality
Effectiveness
Artistic
Less-structured
Heuristic
Experiential-interpretive
Behavior (action)

Emancipatory

Knowledge of meaning (heart)
Essential knowledge (where and
why)
Vital knowledge (spirit)
Object within subject (affective)
Values, conscience, dignity, & ethics
Freedom, justice
Enlightening, ethical, responsible
(right or wrong)
Emotional intelligence
Liberty
Significance
Empowering
Nonstructured
Descriptive
Critical-reflective
Affect (emotion)




113

the effectiveness that normally requires artistic instead of scientific solutions. The ability to acquire implicit knowledge can be viewed as practical
intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1997).
People do not just know through thinking or doing, they also acquire
knowledge with their emotions and feelings. Emancipatory knowledge
includes human beings’ pursuit of freedom and justice, which is advanced
by values, assumptions, and ethics. In the quest for liberty and empowerment, emancipatory knowledge is normally evaluated by intellectual illumination and ethical responsibility. This facet of knowledge can also be facilitated and indicated by emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995, 1996).
Goleman noted that people with higher emotional intelligence tend to “have
a notable capacity for commitment to people or causes, for taking responsibility, and for having an ethical outlook; they are sympathetic and caring in
their relationships” (1995, p. 45).
Researchers and theorists often tend to view the concept of knowledge
from one perspective or another. Moreover, academic fields and related literatures have been divided into camps of so-called paradigms. Scholars tend
to conduct their discourses within one camp or take only one perspective for
the sake of consistency. Those who place their emphasis on explicit knowledge tend to examine relatively structured problems, use empirical-analytic
tools of research, and build prescriptive theories and models. Those who
accept the implicit nature of knowledge look at less-structured problems
with experiential–interpretive tools, and their research outputs appear as
heuristic theories and interpretations. Finally, those who contend that
emancipatory knowledge is vital for any sort of learning use such research
tools as critical reflection or participatory approach to probe nonstructured
problems, and their outcomes are normally descriptive. From a research perspective, the three facets of knowledge represent three domains of study:
cognition (explicit), behavior (implicit), and affect (emancipatory). Each of
the three domains reflects a long history of interest of investigation along
the lines of thinking, action, and emotion, respectively.
Complexity of the Three Knowledge Facets
Knowledge is a complex concept and even one knowledge facet within
the same domain may have different characteristics and functions. The construct of knowledge consists not only of the three facets but also of three
knowledge layers. The knowledge layers include: foundation, manifestation, and orientation. The first layer is a stratum of foundation or premise,
which is the basis for our knowing and determines the boundary of explicit
knowledge. We have to accept certain assumptions to know and act. For
example, some learners may assume that instructions from an authority in
an academic discipline are true across situations and should be followed in

114



their professional practice. This layer indicates our epistemological beliefs.
The second layer is manifestation that represents the outcomes of our knowing. For example, we know certain instructional techniques work well for
certain types of learners. The third layer is the orientation of our knowing
that defines the direction and tendency of knowing action.
The three knowledge facets each have three different layers within their
domains. Table 2 describes indicators of the three layers across the three facets. Explicit knowledge is established on certain axioms, assumptions,
beliefs, and hypotheses, and it moves toward rational thinking. Theories,
principles, conceptual models or frameworks, conceptual frameworks, and
formulas manifest this facet of knowledge. The role of knowledge foundation is different from its outcome or manifestation. We have to accept certain
assumptions simply because we cannot test or verify them. For example,
geometry has to assume the property of two parallel lines. Even though people tend to intuitively accept one assumption that two parallel lines never
cross each other, no matter how long they can be extended, no one has drawn
them into infinity to prove that this assumption can be held. Nevertheless,
accepting or rejecting such an assumption can lead to different outcomes,
Euclidian or non-Euclidian geometry.
Similarly, implicit knowledge has three layers: foundation or basis, manifestation, and orientation. Implicit knowledge is established on the basis of
habits, social norms, traditions, and routines. When we accept those that
have worked well in our previous experiences or those demonstrated by others without much thinking, we are accumulating tacit knowledge. This
knowledge facet is driven toward practical action and manifested by tacit
understandings, technical know-how, mental models, and intuitive decisions. A force of being practical determines its orientation.
Emancipatory knowledge facet also has three layers: foundation or basis,
manifestation, and orientation. At the foundation or basis layer, indicators
for emancipatory knowledge include values, personal aspirations, and perceived ideals for people and society (i.e., vision). At the manifestation layer,
attitudes, motivations, learning needs, equity (i.e., perceived fairness and
justice), ethic behaviors, and moral standards appear. At the orientation
layer, emancipatory knowledge is driven by inherent forces of seeking freedom from any social and natural constrains and ideal of social justice.
Learning as Dynamic Interactions Among Knowledge Facets
Although the differences among the three facets of knowledge have long
been recognized, few scholars have examined their unitary nature and their
dynamic relationships. Even though knowledge facets may come from different sources and develop toward diverse directions, as previously discussed, none of them can be simply dismissed. A holistic theory must incor-


TABLE 2:


Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Indications of Three Knowledge Facets and Three Knowledge Layers
Knowledge Facets

Knowledge Layers

Foundation
Manifestation

Orientation

Explicit

Axioms, assumptions, beliefs,
hypotheses
Theories, principles, models,
conceptual frameworks,
formulas
Rational

Implicit

Emancipatory

Habits, social norms, traditions,
routines
Tacit understandings, know-how,
intuition, mental models

Values, aspirations, vision

Practical

Freedom

Attitudes, motivations, learning needs,
equity, ethics, moral standards

115

116



porate all of the knowledge facets. Each of the three facets of knowledge
provides a support needed for the other facets to exist. Explicit knowledge
will exist only as meaningless facts, figures, or bytes of information without
the support of other facets (i.e., when two other facets are disconnected). We
normally use “body of knowledge” to denote theories, models, and empirical findings but fail to realize that these things only represent explicit facet
of knowledge. From the perspective of the holistic theory, theories and models themselves are not knowledge per se. They are carriers or indications of
explicit knowledge, and they become available information when human
factors are detached. As Davenport and Prusak (1998) noted, information
itself is not knowledge. Thus, the term knowledge base is a better term to
represent explicit knowledge such as theories and models in textbooks. One
cannot simply learn a great deal of robust knowledge in a profession by
memorizing all theories and models (i.e., explicit knowledge) in the chosen
professional field without adequate associations to a practice-based context
to gain adequate implicit knowledge. By the same token, emancipatory
knowledge that defines the objectives and missions that guide our actions
also influence learning.
Implicit knowledge also connects with the two other facets. It will appear
as random, idiosyncratic, and isolated practical experiences without the
support from two other facets. One can learn a great deal of technical knowhow (i.e., implicit knowledge) about fixing a car through trial-and-error and
learning by doing on one’s own. However, such knowledge about the passenger vehicle is limited and may not work well with other cars. A competent auto mechanic needs to have some basic understanding of scientific
principles and engineering specifications (i.e., explicit knowledge) of an
automobile’s engine and other components. The third facet, emancipatory
knowledge, also influences the learning, because it determines the motivation of learning and career direction in the vocation.
Similarly, emancipatory knowledge will be simply emotion or affection
when the explicit and implicit facets are removed in the learning process.
The different terms used in the previous paragraphs and characteristics are
divided and examined just for the purpose of discourse, and they are explicit
writings with rational interest. In reality, a robust piece of knowledge consists of three interrelated facets. A holistic view of knowledge should be a
dynamic dialectic among all three facets.
Consideration of these facets of knowledge can be facilitated by thinking
of them as angles of an equilateral triangle with the angle of the triangle
being the different facets of knowledge. The area inside of the triangle can
be regarded as the arena of knowledge, and the sides of the triangle represent
interactions among the facets. Even though educators and scholars can view
the concept of knowledge from one of the angles and work on a particular
side, there is always the influence of the other two angles in the arena. Each




117

of the angles is bounded by two angles and shaped by the inputs and influences from the other facets of knowledge. Learning can start in one of the
facets, and educators and learners can, consciously or unconsciously, move
toward one of the directions characterized by the knowledge facets. However, any change of one facet is always bounded by both of the other facets.
The dynamic relationships among the knowledge facets and related
learning modes are presented in Figure 1. The three circles in the figure represent the knowledge facets, and the lines with arrows refer to the interaction between the facets. It is assumed that knowledge is created and transformed through the interactions among explicit, implicit, and emancipatory
knowledge. These relations allow us to draw at least nine modes of learning:
participation, conceptualization, contextualization, systematization, validation, legitimization, transformation, interpretation, and materialization.
It is possible that a number of interactions are involved in a learning situation. For the purpose of clarity, it is necessary to describe them one by one in
a linear fashion.
Learning occurs as a result of interactions within each of and among the
three knowledge facets. Learning can start in any of three knowledge facets
and in different forms. Learning may involve one, two, or all of the three
knowledge facets. Learning is defined as the process whereby knowledge is
created, acquired, transformed, converted, or utilized in a different context
from its origin. Knowledge creation is a learning process where new understanding (in either of three facets) about reality is formed. For example, theory building is a knowledge creation process that normally results in a new
format of explicit knowledge. Knowledge acquisition such as attending a
lecture is also a learning process where a learner gains knowledge from
another source in the original form. Knowledge transformation refers to a
process where the learning outcome is a new format of knowledge. For
instance, research seminars and symposiums are sometimes very powerful
in transforming the participants’ knowledge to a greater understanding on
the topic. Knowledge conversion refers to the exchange from one knowledge
facet to another, and the following paragraphs will discuss different forms of
knowledge conversion in detail. Finally, knowledge utilization can also be
viewed as learning when a learner applies it in a different context from its
original and gains new understanding about the problem facing him or her.
In sum, learning involves all of three knowledge facets and appears in different forms.
Participation is a process of learning from practice and thereby creating
implicit knowledge from experiences. Although a learner can build implicit
knowledge directly from experience, differences between implicit knowledge and experience should be acknowledged. Experience refers to something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through. Although experience provides a basis for implicit knowledge, experience does not

118



Transformation

Le
giti
mi
zat
ion

Explicit
Knowledge

n
atio
aliz
teri
Ma
tion
reta
erp
Int

Va
lida
tion

Emancipatory
Knowledge

Contextualization

Implicit
Knowledge

Conceptualization
Systematization

Participation

FIGURE 1: Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Dynamic Relationships of
Three Knowledge Facets and Implied Modes of Learning

automatically become implicit knowledge. Participation is a process of
gaining knowledge through personal direct experience. The direct outcomes
of participation are conscious and unconscious mental models, and technical skills such as know-how. Many forms of learning such as apprenticeship,
demonstrations, case studies, coaching, mentoring, on-job-training, handson-training, nonformal learning, and reflection-in-action fall into this mode
of learning. Personal participation in individual and social activities will
always result in implicit learning, which, in turn, develops intuitive (or tacit)
knowledge. Psychological studies have shown that such knowledge is optimally acquired independent of conscious efforts to learn, and it can be effectively used to solve problems and make decisions (Gerholm, 1990; Reber,
1989). As a new faculty member in a research university, I learned about my
role of teaching and research largely from the process of socialization and
direct participation. Although I also learned about my role and responsibilities partly from the faculty handbook (as explicit knowledge), personal participation and socialization tend to be more effective in such situations.




119

Conceptualization is a process of articulating implicit knowledge into
explicit concepts. It converts familiarities into tangible explanations by proposing new concepts or theories. It is a quintessential knowledge-creation
process in that implicit knowledge becomes explicit, taking forms of metaphors, analogies, concepts, hypotheses, or models (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995). For example, a professional may summarize what has been learned
from practice, reflect on the literature in the field, and write up a scholarly
article for publication. Other professionals in the field then can learn from
such explicit knowledge. Examples of this learning mode are: brainstorming, critical questioning, discussion, reflection-on-action, self-reflection,
hypothesis development, and summative evaluation. The development of
many wonderful theories and concepts in social and natural sciences demonstrates brilliant application of conceptualization. Before Isaac Newton,
human beings had noticed that apples always drop from trees but few questioned the underlying reason. It was possible that people may have explored
the reason and recognized a certain force that pulls apples from trees to the
earth but failed to articulate that force well. It was Newton who developed
the concept of gravity and even deduced a law that governs the relationship
between two objects in the universe. This conceptualization process is so
powerful that it captures the essence of human beings’ intuitive knowledge
and extends such implicit knowing to broader contexts such as the relation
between the earth and the moon.
Contextualization is a process of embodying explicit knowledge into
implicit knowledge. It is the process of utilizing concepts, models, formulas, principles, and propositions in a specific context. A teacher is in this
learning mode when he or she examines the appropriateness of a newly
developed teaching method in his or her classroom. Because there may be
countless factors that affect the decision to adopt the new method, and the
person who developed the method cannot anticipate all possible applicable
situations, the teacher may not be able to clearly state the rationale and the
process of such decision. Therefore, such a learning process that involves
action or behavior will always bring about a change of implicit knowledge.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) thought that this is an internalization process.
Internalization tends to be a narrow definition because it refers to a learning
process of embodying explicit knowledge created by others. Contextualization
includes learning processes of making sense of previous experience or
reexperiencing other people’s experiences. Examples of this learning mode
include: action learning, internship, formative evaluation, learning-bydoing, examination of case story, role-play, and simulation.
Systematization is a process of systematizing explicit conceptions into a
system with logic and reasoning. This learning mode generally involves
combining different bodies of explicit knowledge in a consistent format.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) termed this process as combination. People

120



exchange and combine explicit knowledge through such forms as seminars,
debates, literature critiques, conferences, symposiums, and competencebased-training. As it has been mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the
most useful learning tools in the systematization process are logic and
reasoning.
Validation is a process of examining and possibly modifying underlying
values, desires, judgments, perceived importance and worth, and other
kinds of fundamental learning based on explicit knowledge (which is
believed to be true under a rational perspective). Mezirow (1996) suggested
that we establish validity either by empirically testing to determine the truth
or by appealing to tradition, authority, or rational discourse. He contends,
“Discourse allows us to test the validity of our beliefs and interpretations”
(p. 165). Employee orientation and correctional education are two examples
of this learning mode. Correctional education is designed for offenders in a
program of treatment and rehabilitation for the purpose of improving their
emancipatory knowledge.
Legitimization is a process of justifying explicit knowledge based on
emancipatory knowledge. For instance, many higher education institutions
changed admission regulations after the civil rights movement owing to
changes in the social value system. Examples of this learning process are:
debate, forum and panel discussion, community meetings, critical thinking,
and team building. DeSimone et al. (2002) acknowledged that part of a team
building effort is to unify varied individual energies (from emancipatory
domain) and direct these energies toward valued individual and organizational objectives (i.e., explicit knowledge). At the individual learning level,
legitimization tends to be invisible, but plays an important role in the learning process. In other words, our value system (i.e., emancipatory knowledge) legitimates our beliefs (i.e., explicit knowledge). I cannot understand
some common football terminologies due to personal lack of interest in the
game of football. More important, emancipatory knowledge may facilitate
or deter the acceptance of explicit knowledge. In a high profile murder case,
the prosecution stated that the blood and other evidence proved that the
defender was the murderer, although the defense contended that such evidence was contaminated and/or planted (CNN, n.d.). The jurors in the case,
however, were split along racial lines and consequently believed one theory
or the other. This case demonstrates that emancipatory knowledge can play a
crucial role in learning, because it can cause one to accept, deny, or reject
certain explicit knowledge.
Transformation is a process of converting an old meaning scheme (i.e.,
values, feelings, ethics, etc.) into another form. It should be noted that
transformative learning does not necessary occur in a positive direction.
Some life experiences may bring about learning with a negative interpretation (Merriam, Mott, & Lee, 1996). The key to understanding such a compli-




121

cated learning process lies in its inherent force of seeking physical, psychological, social, emotional, and spiritual freedom and in the interactions
between emancipatory knowledge and the two knowledge facets. Examples
of this learning mode are: nonviolence action, self-reflection, and participatory study.
Materialization is a process of transferring emancipatory knowledge into
implicit knowledge. Those who utilize what has been learned from participatory action research to improve the quality of their daily life are in the process of materialization. Examples of this learning mode include: action
learning, community development, and task force. In a typical educational
program for community development, participants work on consensus values and development of shared vision (i.e., starting from emancipatory
knowledge) and then take individual actions accordingly (i.e, at the implicit
level).
Interpretation is a process of making a meaning scheme from tacit learning and direct experiences. People are often empowered and have a new look
about life through their involvement in participatory action research, and
this is an example of the learning process of interpretation. Critical questioning and conscious awareness technique are two examples of this learning mode as the ultimate outcome is aimed at changing emancipatory
knowledge. Learners may interpret the same life experience differently. One
longitudinal study shows that adult life experiences can result in diverse
development outcomes (Merriam & Yang, 1996). For example, those who
have experienced a period of unemployment have expressed more sensitivity to social and economic inequality. However, they felt marginalized, vulnerable, and controlled by external forces. The results suggest that those
who experienced unemployment had different interpretations of personal
agency and perceived different social issues from those who never had such
experiences. Under the perspective of the holistic theory, perceived individual freedom and social justice may cause the reason for such ambivalent
interpretations of life experiences as well (i.e., under the influence of orientation layer within emancipatory knowledge).
Learning as a Social Activity
The previous paragraphs have examined the nature of knowledge and
how learning takes place at the individual level. Learning is an individual
and social process as well. Few learning actions happen as exclusively individual activities. We should acknowledge the interactions between adult
learning and social or cultural contexts. Figure 2 illustrates a conceptual
framework that depicts the interrelationships between individual learning
and social or cultural contexts. The framework consists of two rings. The
inner ring represents individual learning, whereas the outside ring indicates

122



Critical
Knowledge

Emancipatory
Knowledge

Individual
Explicit
Knowledge

Implicit
Knowledge

Technical
Knowledge

Practical
Knowledge
Social Group/
Organization

External Social, Cultural, Political and Technological Environment
FIGURE 2: Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Learning: Dynamic Relationships
Between Individual, Organization and Social/Cultural Contexts

the dynamic relationships among dominated knowledge of a social group or
an organization that an individual belongs to.
In most learning situations, the learner is interacting with his or her
immediate social group or organization within certain social or cultural contexts. To function well, a group or organization has to have three major components—critical knowledge, technical knowledge, and practical knowledge. The totality of emancipatory knowledge of organizational members
constitutes critical knowledge for the organization or a group of people. For
example, values and visions of an organization represent shared preferences




123

of organizational members and thus indicate the critical knowledge of the
organization. Values explain much variance in organizational processes
because they predict many outcome variables such as innovation and performance (Connor & Becker, 1975). The sum of implicit knowledge of organizational members makes up practical knowledge. Practical knowledge
exists in organizational processes and practices. Similarly, any organization
has certain technical knowledge that represents those believed to be true
explicit knowledge by its members and has been incorporated into its system. Technical knowledge normally exists in systems and structures. From
the perspective of holistic theory, group learning can be defined as a process
of change in the dimensions of collective beliefs (i.e., shared technical
knowledge), social norms (i.e., prevalent practical knowledge), and shared
values (i.e., dominant critical knowledge) among group members.
Viewing learning as a social activity has several important implications.
First of all, it allows us to better understand learning at different levels. Individual knowledge is quite different from group, organizational knowledge
or societal knowledge (Lyles & Schwenk, 1992; Tsoukas & Vladimirou,
2001). Lyles and Schwenk (1992) contended that organizational knowledge
is very different from individual knowledge, because it is socially constructed and relies on consensus or agreement. Even though organizational
knowledge and societal knowledge generally reflect individual knowledge
of its members, they are not always consistent. Because knowledge from different individuals may not be homogenous, it is very important to identify
the processes and mechanisms where individual knowledge becomes leading or dominant knowledge in an organization or at society’s level. The
framework presented in Figure 2 suggests dynamic relations between individual and group/organizational knowledge. It echoes one assertion that
organizational learning is not simply the sum of what individuals are learning but more than that (Easterby-Smith, Crossan, & Nicolini, 2000). Under
the perspective of the holistic theory suggested in Figure 2, organizational
knowledge can be viewed as collective understandings among members
through their technical, practical, and emancipatory facets of knowledge.
Organizational learning involves changes of technical, social, and political
dimensions of the organization. Lyles and Schwenk (1992) suggested,
“Changes in the organizational knowledge structure occur as a result of the
impact of the interpretation of environmental events, results of past organizational actions, the influence of the key decision-makers, and the advocacy
position of coalitions within the firm” (p. 158).
Second, the framework presented in Figure 2 has implications for organizational learning. Crosssan, Lane, and White (1999) observed that a general
theory had yet to be developed and validated, even though interest in organizational learning had grown dramatically. They proposed one of the most
comprehensive frameworks of organizational learning that includes four

124



processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing.
Intuiting refers to the subconscious process of developing insights, and thus
similar to the concept of participation suggested by the holistic theory. The
inputs of the intuiting are experiences and images, whereas the outcomes are
metaphors. Therefore, the intuiting process can be viewed as part of participation to gain implicit knowledge at the individual level.
Interpreting in Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework represents an individual learning process of picking up on the conscious elements and developing
cognitive maps. This process is similar to conceptualization included in the
holistic theory. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the interpreting are limited to
cognitive domain, and thus the affective domain has been ignored. According to the holistic theory, organizational learning needs to start from the
individual level but does not have to be limited to the implicit domain.
Integrating in Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework refers to shared understanding by group members that results in coherent, collective actions. This
learning process reflects the dynamic relationships between individual and
group knowledge and thus can be understood as the interactions between the
two rings in Figure 2. However, the holistic theory suggests that integrating
individual knowledge does not always occur in the cognitive domain and at
system level of an organization. An organization can integrate individuals’
implicit knowledge such as insights and technical know-how, particularly
those hard to be expressed in formal language and symbols, by promoting
and encouraging socialization among members. Similarly, an organization
can integrate individuals’ emancipatory knowledge into its values and consequently change its critical knowledge.
Institutionalizing in Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework referred to a
learning process in which organizations transfer individual and group learning and embed such learning in the systems, structure, strategy, rules, and
procedures. Consequently, institutionalizing indicates the change of organizational technical knowledge (carried by systems and structure) as a result
of the changes of practical knowledge (carried by processes and practices)
and individual knowledge. Because Crosssan et al.’s (1999) framework did
not distinguish three domains of organizational knowledge; it fails to capture some of the key organizational learning activities. For example, the
holistic theory suggests that changing an organization’s values and visions
is a vital learning process and that it’s critical knowledge that interacts with
individual shared values and critical knowledge. Rules and procedures can
be institutionalized but cannot guarantee the desired change and the coherence of individual values. Many organizations have established their values
and visions, but they stay only as slogans on walls and fail to be incorporated
in daily practice owing the incongruence with employees’ critical knowledge. The holistic theory presented in Figure 2 provides a relatively clear




125

picture of the dynamic relationships between individual and organizational
learning.
Third, the framework presented in Figure 2 offers valuable insights to
study learning organizations. The concept of the learning organization has
received much attention in HRD literature, but few theories in this area have
clearly identified organizational knowledge. According to Watkins and
Marsick (1993, 1996), learning organizations should be built at individual,
team, and organization-wide levels. As a social entity, an organization
learns as a result of changes in its three knowledge domains (i.e., corresponding to its collective value and vision, system and structure, and process and practice). The conceptual framework presented in Figure 2 not only
clearly identifies three major knowledge domains, but it also delineates
their functions and dynamic relationships. Findings from a case study of
strategic organizational learning by Thomas, Sussman, and Henderson
(2001) tended to support the dynamic relationships among different knowledge domains. It was confirmed that rich experience was the creating source
of diverse meanings and assimilation of tacit knowledge. Organizational
learning processes were characterized by knowledge acquisition, interpretation, validation, and assimilation across multiple levels of the organization. A detailed discussion on the implications of the holistic theory for
organizational learning and knowledge management is beyond the limited
scope of this article. However, the dynamic relationships among the three
knowledge facets at the individual level are applicable at the organizational
level. For example, employees’ perceived justice (i.e., individual
emancipatory knowledge under a strong influence of collective critical
knowledge) might facilitate or inhibit knowledge sharing (Lubit, 2001).
In summary, the holistic theory proposed in this article suggests that
knowledge is a three faceted social construct. To understand the nature of
knowledge and the processes of adult and organizational learning, we need
not only to acknowledge different characteristics of three knowledge facets,
but also to recognize the dynamic relationships among them. Learning can
be understood as a change in one or more facets in the dynamic relationships
within social and cultural contexts.

Contemporary Paradigms in
the View of the Holistic Theory
There has been a great deal of discussion about the paradigms of learning
and research (Merriam, 1991; Mezirow, 1996). From the perspective of the
proposed holistic theory of knowledge and learning, contemporary paradigms have evolved with emphasis on one facet of knowledge or another.
The positivist or objectivist paradigm posits that only the explicit facet is

126



valid knowledge (Searle, 1993). Learning occurs as learners relate concepts
descriptive of the new knowledge to previous knowledge within their cognitive structure. The integration of new and previous knowledge occurs
through changes in the learners’ conceptual structure. Concepts are developed and stored in a hierarchical structure. The positivist paradigm assumes
that human beings are rational and take action based on explicit knowledge.
The essential element of the rationality is a conscious goal and the best
action selected from all relevant alternatives that maximize the promise of
reaching that goal. Nevertheless, because of much emphasis on explicit or
technical knowledge, this perspective might ignore or pay less attention to
the roles of unconscious learning and learning in the affect domain.
The interpretive paradigm emphasizes the implicit nature of knowledge
and the changing influences of reality. Knowledge is acquired only through
experiences and direct engagement in practice (i.e., participation; Lave &
Wenger, 1991). Consequently, this paradigm values implicit or practical
knowledge. Mezirow (1990) contended that the learning process involved
looking at past experiences, new experiences, and reflecting on these for the
purpose of making meaning. Observing the dynamic world and the complexity of human communication, the interpretive paradigm asserts that
realities are multiple and subjective and that truth is relative. Consequently,
such assertion poses a dilemma. Do we want the communication of our
interpretations to be as clear as if there is a single reality or, with multiple
realities (possibly billions of different interpretations), a confusion that
leads to no action? Such dilemmas can be found in Mezirow’s theory of
transformational learning. On one hand, this theory rejects a positivist
notion of absolute truth and assumes that knowledge is subjective. On the
other hand, this theory “seeks to establish a general, abstract, and idealized
model which explains the generic structure, dimensions, and dynamics of
the learning process” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 166). From the perspective of the
holistic theory, all theories serve as carriers of explicit or technical knowledge and thus have positivist elements. The interpretive paradigm fails to
distinguish interpretations from reality.
The critical paradigm involves a commitment to deliberate action for justice in society, whereas the existing social structure is seen as coercive and
oppressive. It argues that any adequate approach to theory must provide
ways of distinguishing ideologically distorted interpretations from those
that are not (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Although the critical paradigm focuses
on emancipatory or critical knowledge, it assumes that a certain part of
knowledge is distorted. Although this paradigm strongly advocates the
rejection of positivist notions of rationality, objectivity, and truth because of
its danger to move toward hegemony, most of its propositions tend to fall
into the scope of instrumental rationality. Without the support from two
other facets, emancipatory or critical knowledge might lead to a true “false




127

consciousness.” Many communist movements were originated from the
critical paradigm and aimed toward emancipation for the working class, but
they later tended to be very hegemonic because of the lack of continuous
validation.
Therefore, existing paradigms have limited perspectives about knowledge, and we should attempt to end paradigm wars. What we need is a holistic view with a dialectical perspective. That is to say, it is necessary to realize
both the contradictory and complementary nature of knowledge. Learning is
not an easy task moving toward one direction in a linear fashion. On one
hand, the three knowledge facets have been established on different bases,
with different characteristics, and move toward different directions. On the
other hand, there are dynamic relationships among these facets. More
important, knowledge is always changing, and learning is taking place along
with any changes in the three knowledge facets. Consequently, although
scholars and practitioners may limit their work only in one or two domains,
they need to acknowledge the roles of and relations with all of the other
knowledge facets.

Conclusion
This article presents a holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning.
By examining the major characteristics of three knowledge facets, it argues
that learning can be understood within the interactions among the three facets of knowledge. It further argues that each of the knowledge facets should
be examined in three layers because of their different roles and functions.
The conventional paradigms assume that knowledge facets are divisive and
thus fail to integrate the dynamic relationships among knowledge facets.
Therefore, research and theory building need to consider the nature of
knowledge facets. Theories must meet the requirements of empirically
sound, communicative clarity, and critically analysis (Brookfield, 1992).
As part of knowledge base, theory-building efforts should consider the
nature of three knowledge facets. Adequate criteria of theory building
should include explicit facet of knowledge (i.e., empirically sound and logical), implicit facet of knowledge (i.e., communicative and practical), and
emancipatory facet of knowledge (i.e., critical and ethical).
More research and theory building activities need to be done to test and
validate the proposed holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning.
Because of space limitation, this article largely focused on the nature of
knowledge and learning at the individual level and learning in certain social
or cultural contexts. Similar theorization needs to be done at the group and
organizational levels to explore the effective ways of knowledge management and organizational learning.

128



References
Bornstein, R. F. (1999). Unconscious motivation and phenomenal knowledge: Toward a comprehensive theory of implicit mental states. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 758.
Brookfield, S. (1992). Developing criteria for formal theory building in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 79-93.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
CNN (n.d.). Simpson judge OKs jury prospects who admit bias. Retrieved November 27, 2002, from
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/index.html
Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1975). Values and the organization: Suggestions for research. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 550-561.
Crosssan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From
intuition to institution. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 522-537.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
DeSimone, R. L., Werner, J. M., & Harris, D. M. (2002). Human resource development (3rd ed.).
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 22, 735-808.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: Debates past,
present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 783-796.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.
Gerholm, T. (1990). On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal of Education, 25, 263-271.
Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance, and change: An
introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: What it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24(6), 4950.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimated peripheral participation. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lubit, R. (2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable competitive
advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 164-178.
Lyles, M. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1992). Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge
structure. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 154-174.
Merriam, S. B. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In J. M. Peter & P. Jarvis (Eds.), Adult
education: Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study (pp. 42-65). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., Mott, V., & Lee, M. (1996). Learning that comes from negative interpretation of life
experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 18(1), 1-23.
Merriam, S. B., & Yang, B. (1996). A longitudinal study of adult life experiences and development
outcomes. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 62-81.
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.),
Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning
(pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 158-173.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.




129

Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in higher and adult education. Malabar, FL:
Krieger.
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
118, 219-235.
Searle, J. R. (1993). Rationality and realism, what is at stake? Daedalus, 122, 55-83.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success.
American Psychologist, 52, 1030-1037.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.
Thomas, J. B., Sussman, S. W., & Henderson, J. C. (2001). Understanding “strategic learning”:
Linking organizational learning, knowledge management, and sensemaking. Organization Science, 12, 331-345.
Thompson, M. M., & Schield, F. M. (1996). Neither political nor visionary: Language,
professionalization, and the representation of women in the journals of adult education, 19291960. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 123-141.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management
Studies, 38, 973-993.s
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993) Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and
science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization.Alexandria,
VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Wilson, A. L. (1993). The common concern: Controlling professionalization of adult education.
Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 1-16.

Baiyin Yang is an associate professor of human resource development and
adult education at the University of Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. from
the University of Georgia and has served on the graduate faculties of Auburn
University and University of Idaho. His primary research focus has been on
the development and validation of a holistic theory of knowledge and adult
learning. His research interests include program planning and evaluation,
adult and organizational learning, power and influence tactics, cross-cultural
studies of learning and organizational behavior, and quantitative research
methods. He is presently serving as the quantitative method editor of Human
Resource Development Quarterly and consulting editor of Adult Education
Quarterly.

Baiyin Yang

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Baiyin Yang

Similaire à Baiyin Yang (20)

Plus de eadl

Plus de eadl (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Baiyin Yang