Procedural knowledge: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:57, 9 May 2023

Revision as of 08:39, 12 May 2023

Line 1:

{{Short description|Ability to do something}}

'''Procedural knowledge''' (also known as '''[[Know-how|knowing-how]]''', and sometimes referred to as '''practical knowledge''', '''imperative knowledge''', or '''performative knowledge''')<ref>{{Cite book|title=The First-Person Point of View|last=Carl|first=Wolfgang|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|year=2014|isbn=9783110362855|pages=147}}</ref> is the knowledge exercised in the performance of some task. Unlike [[descriptive knowledge]] (also known as "declarative knowledge", or "propositional knowledge" or "knowing-that"), which involves knowledge of specific facts or propositions (e.g. "I know that snow is white"), procedural knowledge involves one's ability to ''do'' something (e.g. "I know how to change a flat tire"). A person doesn't need to be able to verbally articulate their procedural knowledge in order for it to count as knowledge, since procedural knowledge requires only knowing how to correctly perform an action or exercise a skill.<ref name=SEP>{{cite web |title=Knowledge How |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-how/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=14 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Stanley 2001 411–444">{{Cite journal|last1=Stanley|first1=Jason|last2=Williamson|first2=Timothy|date=2001|title=Knowing How|journal=The Journal of Philosophy|volume=98|issue=8|pages=411–444|doi=10.2307/2678403|jstor=2678403}}</ref>

The term "''procedural knowledge"'' has narrower but related technical uses in both [[cognitive psychology]] and [[intellectual property|intellectual property law]].

== Overview ==

Line 12:

== Definition ==

Procedural knowledge is the “know"know how”how" attributed to technology defined by cognitive psychologists, which is simply ‘know"know how to do it’it" knowledge. Part of the complexity of it comes in trying to link it to terms such as ‘process’''process'', ‘problem''problem solving’solving'', ‘strategic''strategic thinking’thinking'' and the like, which in turn requires distinguishing different levels of procedure.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCormick|first=Robert|date=1997-01-01|title=Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge|url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008819912213|journal=International Journal of Technology and Design Education|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=141–159|doi=10.1023/A:1008819912213|issn=1573-1804}}</ref> It is the ability to execute action sequences to solve problems. This type of knowledge is tied to specific problem types and therefore is not widely generalizable.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rittle-Johnson|first1=Bethany|last2=Siegler|first2=Robert S.|last3=Alibali|first3=Martha Wagner|date=2001|title=Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=93|issue=2|pages=346–362|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346|issn=1939-2176}}</ref> Procedural knowledge is goal-oriented and mediates problem-solving behavior.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Corbett|first1=Albert T.|last2=Anderson|first2=John R.|date=1995|title=Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01099821|journal=User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction|volume=4|issue=4|pages=253–278|doi=10.1007/bf01099821|s2cid=19228797 |issn=0924-1868}}</ref>

The termconcept “proceduralof knowledge”procedural knowledge is also widely used in mathematics educational researches. The well-influential definition of procedural knowledge in this ___domain comes from the introductory chapter by Hiebert and Lefevre (1986) of the seminal book “Conceptual"Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics”mathematics", in which they divided procedural knowledge into two categories. The first one is a familiarity with the individual symbols of the system and with the syntactic conventions for acceptable configurations of symbols. The second one consists of rules or procedures of solving mathematical problems. In other words, they define procedural knowledge as knowledge of the syntax, steps conventions and rules for manipulating symbols.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Hiebert|first=James|title=Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics.}}</ref> Many of the procedures that students possess probably are chains of prescriptions for manipulating symbols. In their definition, procedural knowledge includes algorithms, which means if one executes the procedural steps in a predetermined order and without errors, one is guaranteed to get the solutions, but not includes heuristics, which are abstract, sophisticated and deep procedures knowledgesknowledge that are tremendously powerful assets in problem solving. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schoenfeld|first=Alan H.|date=1979|title=Explicit Heuristic Training as a Variable in Problem-Solving Performance|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/748805|journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education|volume=10|issue=3|pages=173–187|doi=10.2307/748805|jstor=748805 |issn=0021-8251}}</ref> Therefore, Star (2005) proposed a reconceptualization of procedural knowledge, which suggesting that it can be either superficial, like ones mentioned in Hiebert and Lefevre (1986), or deep.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Star|first=Jon R.|date=2005|title=Reconceptualizing Procedural Knowledge|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034943|journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education|volume=36|issue=5|pages=404–411|doi=10.2307/30034943|jstor=30034943 |issn=0021-8251}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Deep procedural knowledge is associated with comprehension, flexibility and critical judgement. For example, the goals and subgoals of steps, the environment or type of situation for certain procedure, and the constraints imposed upon the procedure by the environment.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Development of Mathematical Thinking|year=1983|pages=253–290}}</ref> ResearchesResearch ofon procedural flexibility development indicates flexibility as an indicator for deep procedural knowledge. Individuals with superficial procedural knowledge can only use standard technique, which might lead to low efficiency solutions and probably inability to solve novel questions. However, more flexible solvers, with a deep procedural knowledge, can navigate their way through ___domain, using techniques other than ones that are over-practiced, and find the best match solutions for different conditions and goals. <ref>{{Cite book|last=Star|first=Jon R.|url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED471762|title=Re-Conceptualizing Procedural Knowledge: The Emergence of "Intelligent" Performances among Equation Solvers|date=2002|publisher=ERIC/CSMEE Publications, 1929 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1080|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref>Star, J. R. (2013). {{Citation|title=On the Relationship Between Knowing and Doing in Procedural Learning|date=2013-04-15|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203763865-22|work=International Conference of the Learning Sciences|pages=92–98|publisher=Psychology Press|doi=10.4324/9780203763865-22 |isbn=978-0-203-76386-5|s2cid=9793860 |access-date=2020-12-08}}</ref>

== Development ==

Line 22:

== Activation ==

Lashley (1951) proposed that behavioral sequences are typically controlled with central plans, and the structure of the plans is hierarchical. Some evidences also support this hypothesis. Same behaviors can have different functional interpretations depending on the context in which they occur. The same sound pattern can be interpreted differently depending on where it occurs in a sentence, for example, “there”''there'' and “their”''their''. Such contextual dependence is only possible with functionally overarching states of the sort implied by hierarchical plans. <ref>{{Cite book|last=Lashley|first=K. S.|title=The problem of serial order in behavior}}</ref> The initiation time of a movement sequence and the inter-response times of the sequence elements can increase with its length.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Rhodes|first1=Bradley J.|last2=Bullock|first2=Daniel|last3=Verwey|first3=Willem B.|last4=Averbeck|first4=Bruno B.|last5=Page|first5=Michael P.A.|date=2004|title=Learning and production of movement sequences: Behavioral, neurophysiological, and modeling perspectives|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2004.10.008|journal=Human Movement Science|volume=23|issue=5|pages=699–746|doi=10.1016/j.humov.2004.10.008|pmid=15589629 |issn=0167-9457|hdl=2144/1921|s2cid=8012945 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> Further, inter-response times can depend on the size of the phrase that is about to be generated. The larger the phrase, the longer the inter-response time.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Collard|first1=Ren?|last2=Povel|first2=Dirk-Jan|date=1982|title=Theory of serial pattern production: Tree traversals.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.89.6.693|journal=Psychological Review|volume=89|issue=6|pages=693–707|doi=10.1037/0033-295x.89.6.693|issn=0033-295X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rosenbaum|first1=David A.|last2=Kenny|first2=Sandra B.|last3=Derr|first3=Marcia A.|date=1983|title=Hierarchical control of rapid movement sequences.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.9.1.86|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance|volume=9|issue=1|pages=86–102|doi=10.1037/0096-1523.9.1.86|pmid=6220126 |issn=1939-1277}}</ref> Such data have been interpreted in terms of ‘decoding’decoding or ‘unpacking’unpacking hierarchical plans into their constituents. Moreover, learning difficulties changes with the easiness of behavioral sequences.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Restle|first=Frank|date=1970|title=Theory of serial pattern learning: Structural trees.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0029964|journal=Psychological Review|volume=77|issue=6|pages=481–495|doi=10.1037/h0029964|issn=1939-1471}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Simon|first=Herbert A.|date=1972|title=Complexity and the representation of patterned sequences of symbols.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033118|journal=Psychological Review|volume=79|issue=5|pages=369–382|doi=10.1037/h0033118|issn=0033-295X}}</ref> Finally, long-term learning of skills is naturally characterized by the process of forming ever larger hierarchical units or ‘chunks'chunks.<ref name=":4" /> People learn control structures for successively larger units of behavior, with newly learned routines calling up or relying on more elementary routines, like learning to play simple notes before being able to play a piano concerto.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bryan|first1=William Lowe|last2=Harter|first2=Noble|date=1897|title=Studies in the physiology and psychology of the telegraphic language.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0073806|journal=Psychological Review|volume=4|issue=1|pages=27–53|doi=10.1037/h0073806|issn=0033-295X}}</ref>

As for process of behavior plan forming, Rosenhaum et al. (2007) proposed that plans are not formed from scratch for each successive movement sequence but instead are formed by making whatever changes are needed to distinguish the movement sequence to be performed next from the movement sequence that has just been performed.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Rosenbaum|first1=David A.|last2=Cohen|first2=Rajal G.|last3=Jax|first3=Steven A.|last4=Weiss|first4=Daniel J.|last5=van der Wel|first5=Robrecht|date=2007|title=The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley's legacy|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.04.001|journal=Human Movement Science|volume=26|issue=4|pages=525–554|doi=10.1016/j.humov.2007.04.001|pmid=17698232 |issn=0167-9457}}</ref> There are evidences found that motor planning occurs by changing features of successively needed motor plans.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rosenbaum|first1=David A|last2=Weber|first2=Robert J|last3=Hazelett|first3=William M|last4=Hindorff|first4=Van|date=1986|title=The parameter remapping effect in human performance: Evidence from tongue twisters and finger fumblers|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(86)90045-8|journal=Journal of Memory and Language|volume=25|issue=6|pages=710–725|doi=10.1016/0749-596x(86)90045-8|issn=0749-596X}}</ref> Also, Rosenhaum et al. (2007) found that even single movements appear to be controlled with hierarchically organized plans. With starting and goal postures at the top level and intermediate states comprising the transition from the starting to the goal at the lower level.<ref name=":5" />

== Interaction with conceptual knowledge ==

The most common understanding in relation to the procedural and conceptual knowledge is of the contrast of ‘knowing''knowing how’how'' and ‘knowing''knowing that’that''.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ryle|first=G.|title=The concept of mind|year=1949}}</ref> Some see the distinction as a contrast between the tacit knowledge of technology and the explicit knowledge of science.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Cross|first1=A.|title=Technology in schools: a reader|last2=McCormick|first2=R.|year=1986}}</ref> Conceptual knowledge allows us to explain why, hence the distinction of ‘know"know how’how" and ‘know"know why’why".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Plant|first=M.|title=How is science useful to technology.|year=1994}}</ref> Conceptual knowledge is concerned with relationships among ‘items’items of knowledge, such that when students can identify these links, it means themthey have ‘conceptualconceptual understanding’understanding. Cognitive psychologists also use the term ‘declarative''declarative knowledge’,knowledge'' to contrast it with procedural knowledge, and define it as ‘knowledge"knowledge of facts’facts".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Anderson|first=J.R.|title=Cognitive psychology and its implications|year=2005}}</ref> However, declarative knowledge may be a collection of unrelated facts, whereas conceptual knowledge puts the focus on relationships.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Heibert|first1=J.|title=Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics.|last2=Lefevre|first2=P.|year=1986}}</ref> Also, declarative knowledge is an inert form of knowledge which contrasted with procedural knowledge as an active form, but conceptual knowledge can be part of an active process. Therefore, it is important to know that conceptual knowledge is not simply factual knowledge but consists of ideas that give some power to thinking about technological activity.

Several evidenceEvidence from mathematics learning researchesresearch supportsupports the idea that conceptual understanding plays a role in generation and adoption of procedures. Children with greater conceptual understanding tend to have greater procedural skill.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hiebert|first1=James|last2=Wearne|first2=Diana|date=1996|title=Instruction, Understanding, and Skill in Multidigit Addition and Subtraction|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1403_1|journal=Cognition and Instruction|volume=14|issue=3|pages=251–283|doi=10.1207/s1532690xci1403_1|issn=0737-0008}}</ref> Conceptual understanding precedes procedural skill.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gelman|first1=Rochel|last2=Meck|first2=Elizabeth|date=1983|title=Preschoolers' counting: Principles before skill|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90014-8|journal=Cognition|volume=13|issue=3|pages=343–359|doi=10.1016/0010-0277(83)90014-8|pmid=6683141 |s2cid=5070684 |issn=0010-0277}}</ref> Instruction about concepts as well as procedures can lead to increased procedural skill.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hiebert|first1=James|last2=Wearne|first2=Diana|date=1992|title=Links between Teaching and Learning Place Value with Understanding in First Grade|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/749496|journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education|volume=23|issue=2|pages=98|doi=10.2307/749496|jstor=749496 |issn=0021-8251}}</ref> And increasing conceptual knowledge leads to procedure generation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Perry|first=Michelle|date=1991|title=Learning and transfer: Instructional conditions and conceptual change|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(91)90049-j|journal=Cognitive Development|volume=6|issue=4|pages=449–468|doi=10.1016/0885-2014(91)90049-j|issn=0885-2014|hdl=2027.42/29108|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Rittle-Johnson|first1=Bethany|last2=Alibali|first2=Martha Wagner|date=1999|title=Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other?|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.175|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=91|issue=1|pages=175–189|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.175|issn=0022-0663}}</ref> However, this relationship is not unidirectional. Conceptual and procedural knowledge develop iteratively, but the conceptual knowledge may have a greater influence on procedural knowledge than the reverse.<ref name=":6" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rittle-Johnson|first1=Bethany|last2=Siegler|first2=Robert S.|last3=Alibali|first3=Martha Wagner|date=2001|title=Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=93|issue=2|pages=346–362|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346|issn=1939-2176}}</ref> Conceptual instruction led to increased conceptual understanding and to generation and transfer of a correct procedure. Procedural instruction led to increased conceptual understanding and to adoption, but only limited transfer, of the instructed procedure.

== Technical uses of the phrase ==

=== Artificial intelligence ===

In ''[[artificial intelligence]]'', procedural knowledge is onea type of knowledge that can be possessed by an [[intelligent agent]]. Such knowledge is often represented as a partial or complete [[finite-state machine]] or [[computer program]]. A well-known example is the [[procedural reasoning system]], which might, in the case of a mobile robot that navigates in a building, contain procedures such as "navigate to a room" or "plan a path". In contrast, an AI system based on [[declarative knowledge]] might just contain a map of the building, together with information about the basic actions that can be done by the robot (like moving forward, turning, and stopping), and leave it to a ___domain-independent [[computer planning|planning algorithm]] to discover how to use those actions to achieve the agent's goals.

=== Cognitive psychology ===

{{main|Tacit knowledge}}

In ''[[cognitive psychology]]'', procedural knowledge is the knowledge exercised in the accomplishment of a task, and thus includes knowledge which, unlike [[declarative knowledge]], cannot be easily articulated by the individual, since it is typically nonconscioussubconscious (or tacit). Many times, the individual learns procedural knowledge without even being aware that they are learning.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Stadler|first1=Michael A.|title=On learning complex procedural knowledge.|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition|volume=15|issue=6|year=1989|pages=1061–1069|doi=10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1061|pmid=2530306 }}</ref> For example, most individuals can easily recognize a specific face as "attractive" or a specific joke as "funny", but they cannot explain how exactly they arrived at that conclusion or they cannot provide a working definition of "attractiveness" or being "funny". This example illustrates the difference between procedural knowledge and the ordinary notion of knowing how, a distinction which is acknowledged by many cognitive psychologists.<ref>Stillings, Neil; Weisler, Steven E. and Chase, Christopher H. (1995) ''Cognitive Science: An Introduction'', 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p.&nbsp;396. {{isbn|0262691752}}</ref>

Ordinarily, we would not say that one who is able to recognize a face as attractive is one who knows how to recognize a face as attractive. One knows how to recognize faces as attractive no more than one knows how to recognize certain arrangements of [[Lepton|leptons]], [[Quark|quarks]], etc. as tables. Recognizing faces as attractive, like recognizing certain arrangements of leptons, quarks, etc. as tables, is simply something that one does, or is able to do. It is, therefore, an instance of procedural knowledge, but it is not an instance of know-how. OfIn coursemany cases, both forms of knowledge are, in many cases, nonconscioussubconscious.

For instance, research by a cognitive psychologist [[Pawel Lewicki]] has demonstratedshown that procedural knowledge can be acquired by nonconscioussubconscious processing of information about covariations.

=== Educational implications ===

Line 53 ⟶ 54:

=== Intellectual property law ===

In ''[[intellectual property]]'' law, procedural knowledge is a parcel of closely held information relating to industrial technology, sometimes also referred to as a [[trade secret]] which enables its user to derive commercial benefit from it. In some legal systems, such procedural knowledge has been considered the intellectual property of a company, and can be transferred when that company is purchased. It is a component of the intellectual property rights on its own merits in most legislations but most often accompanies the license to the right-of-use of [[patent]]s or [[trademark]]s owned by the party releasing it for circumscribed use. Procedural knowledge is not however solely composed of secret information that is not in the public ___domain; it is a "bundled" parcel of secret and related non-secret information which would be novel to an expert in the field of its usage.

===Industrial know-how===

In the context of [[industrial property]] (now generally viewed as [[intellectual property]] or IP), know-how is a component in the transfer of technology in national and international environments, co-existing with or separate from other IP rights such as [[patent]]s, [[trademark]]s and [[copyright]] and is an economic asset.<ref>Manual on Technology Transfer Negotiation, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (A Reference for Policy-makers and Practitioners on Technology Transfer), [[United Nations Industrial Development Organization]], [[Vienna, Austria]] (1996) {{ISBN|92-1-106302-7}}</ref> When it is transferred by itself, know-how should be converted into a [[trade secret]] before transfer in a legal agreement.

Know-how can be defined as ''confidentially held'', or better, ''closely held'' information in the form of unpatented inventions, formulae, designs, drawings, procedures and methods, together with accumulated skills and experience in the hands of a licensor firm's professional personnel which could assist a transferee/licensee of the object product in its manufacture and use and bring to it a competitive advantage. It can be further supported with privately maintained expert knowledge on the operation, maintenance, use/application of the object product and of its sale, usage or disposition.

The inherent proprietary value of know-how is embedded in the legal protection afforded to [[trade secrets]] in general law, particularly, [[case law]].<ref>Licensing Guide for Developing Countries, [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO), Geneva, 1977, {{ISBN|92-805-0395-2}}</ref> Know-how, in short, is "private intellectual property" which can be said to be a form of precursor to other intellectual property rights. The "trade secret law" varies from country to country, unlike the case for patents, trademarks and copyright for which there are formal "conventions" through which subscribing countries grant the same protection to the "property" as the others; examples of which are the [[Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property]] and the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO), under United Nations, a supportive organization designed "to encourage creative activity, [and] to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world".

The [[World Trade Organization]] defined a trade secret by the following criteria:<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3d_e.htm |title=TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1995), Section 7: Protection of Undisclosed Information, Article 39(2) |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120171319/https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3d_e.htm |archive-date=2017-01-20 |access-date=2019-06-20 |website=wto.org |publisher=[[World Trade Organization]]}}</ref>

Line 71 ⟶ 72:

===Disclosure agreements===

There are two sets of agreements associated with the transfer of know-how agreement: (a) the disclosure and (b) the non-disclosure agreements, which are not separately parts of the principal know-how agreement.{{citation needed|date=September 2008}}

The initial need for "disclosure" is due to the requirement of a licensee firm to know what is the specific, unique, or general "content" of the know-how that a licensor firm possesses that promises value to the licensee on entering into a contract. Disclosure also aids the potential licensee in selecting among competitive offers, if any. Such disclosures are made by licensors only under non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements in which there are express undertakings that should the ultimate license not materialize, the firm to whom the disclosure is made will not reveal, or by any manner apply, any part of the disclosed knowledge which is not in the public ___domain or previously known to the firm receiving the information.

Non-disclosure agreements are undertaken by those who receive confidential information from the licensee, relating to licensed know-how, so as to perform their tasks. Among them are the personnel of engineering firms who construct the plant for the licensee or those who are key employees of the licensee who have detailed access to disclosed data, etc. to administer their functions in operating the know-how-based plant. These are also in the nature of confidentiality agreements and carry the definition of know-how, in full or truncated part, on a need-to-know basis.

Line 80 ⟶ 81:

Under English law, employees have a duty of [[good faith]] and fidelity until their employment ceases whereby only the former still applies.

It is sometimes unclear what forms of "know how" that was divulged to an employee in order to carry out their functions and then becomes their own knowledge rather than a secret of their previous employer. Some employers will specify in their employment contracts that a "[[grace period]]" will apply to know how that starts when a person leaves them as an employee.

Specifying exactly what information this includes would increase the likelihood of it being upheld in court in the event of a breach, i.e. saying "when your employment contract is terminated, you must keep all information about your previous employment with us secret for four years" would be difficult to support because that person has to be able to use the skills and knowledge they learnt to gain employment elsewhere.

Line 93 ⟶ 94:

* [[Heuristic]]

* [[How To (disambiguation)|How-to]]

* [[How-to]]

* [[Idea]]

* [[Imperative mood]]