Aim

This theoretical paper compares and contrasts several conceptions of expert and expertise used in the literature and assesses the extent to which they are suitable for use in complex professional environments.

 Semantic problems

The original Latin definition of expert referred to experience, but this has been replaced by a definition based on knowledge or performance. Thus the Oxford Concise English Dictionary defines an expert is “a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area”. This definition is extremely broad, so its intended meaning is usually deduced from the context. In one context the term ‘expert’ might be applied to any qualified person, and in another context only to those believed to have exceptional expertise. Sometimes the term is used pejoratively as knowing more and more about less and less, and sometimes with great respect for a person’s practical judgement within their domain of expertise. The term ‘expert’ could be defined like competence in terms of meeting the expectations of its user, but it also includes the possibility that the client may lack the knowledge to frame their expectations. In such context, the professions are expected to follow an ethical role based on their social purpose in society.

 Epistemological issues

Kennedy’s (1987) review of expertise in education encompassed four different approaches to defining expertise:

 1.      A set of discrete technical skills, and expertise in deciding whether and when to use them.

 2.      The application of theory and general principles, noting that such principles may be either scientific or derived from social norms. This involves recognising a particular case as an example of a general principle, adjusting predictions derived from a general principle to accommodate the special features of the case, and blending the variety of potentially important principles to form an integrated body of knowledge that can be applied to specific cases.

 3.      Critical analysis, which prescribes neither techniques nor principles but “a paradigm for examining and interpreting situations.

 4.      Deliberative action, which assumes “an interactive relationship between analysis and action”. Such expertise “evolves and develops with experience, but that experience can only contribute to expertise if practitioners are capable of learning from it”.

 Her conclusion was that no definition is self-sufficient, all four definitions make a significant contribution to professional expertise, and expertise is always fallible.

 Novice-expert studies

Two very different types of novice-expert study are discussed. One focuses on changes in the cognitive frameworks used by developing professionals when addressing a particular type of problem, by comparing responses from groups at different stages in their professional formation. This approach will be exemplified by Schmidt & Boshuizen (1993) and (Boshuizen, Bromme & Gruber, 2004).

 The second type of study explores changes in the overall understanding of key aspects of the professional role. The early defining texts of Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1986) and Benner (1983) focus on a more holistic approach to learning with a strong tacit dimension that characterises a progression through five levels: Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, and Expert. Its early and middle stages involve the development of situational recognition and understanding, and standard routines which enable learners to cope with crowded busy contexts. Progression beyond competent is associated with the gradual replacement of deliberation by more intuitive forms of cognition.

 The distinction between proficient and expert

Neither of the above approaches to expertise has yet addressed professionals in mid or late career, thus excluding those whom most professional workers would regard as experts.  This problem might be resolved by re-examining the differences between the Dreyfuses’ Proficient and Expert levels in the light of Bereiter & Scardamalia’s (1993) distinction between experts, experienced non-experts and routine experts. Their first distinction is that experts “solve problems that increase their expertise and deepen their understanding, whereas non-experts are likely to tackle problems that do not make them grow and develop themselves”. Both experienced non-experts and routine experts are stuck at Dreyfus’ proficient level, the former through not responding to more challenging possibilities and the latter through not having access to further learning possibilities.

 This distinction between proficient and expert could probably be interpreted in a professional context as comparing a professional with a repertoire of well defined problems to which they can apply familiar solutions, using a rule based approach that avoids time consuming deliberations; and a professional who has also developed the attributes required for tackling ill defined problems. Schon (1983) described this expertise in terms of problem setting, reframing the problem and reflection-in-action, but also used the more deliberative approach of Dewey.

 Working in Complex Environments

The most significant limitation of the concept of an expert is its focus on individual agents. However, few work environments survive without effective cooperation; and a wide range of interpersonal interactions are needed in complex situations. These require both the sharing of expertise and the recognition and appropriate use of others’ complementary expertise (Hakkarainen et al. 2004), Eraut & Hirsh 2007). The ill-defined problems that characterise complex environments usually require decisions that cannot be based on the prior knowledge of teams or individuals; and the literature on teams (Hackmann 1987, Salas et al. 1992, Pissarro et al. 2001), naturalistic decision-making (Klein et al. 1993, Zsambok & Klein 1997) and organisational learning (Eraut & Hirsh 2007) will be used to exemplify a range of team capabilities and cooperative practices that rarely appear on professional learning agendas. These are not unusual organisations or novel types of community like those identified by Hakkarainen et al. (2004), but familiar organisations whose complex needs and achievements rarely penetrate the gaze of higher education.

 Finally we come to professionals’ interactions with clients. This will focus on the use of complexity theory in Allen’s (2007) study of how Community Mental Health Teams work with clients with personality disorder. This found that only a third of their learning needs were included in recent national policy guidance, and derived a complexity-informed model of Synergistic Learning for personality disorder practice and understanding complex organisational environments.