Have you ever thought about the potential for unintended
consequences in acquiring disciplinary expertise? While one might assume that you see the
rewards as worth the risks, this might not be the case, as some of you might be
in the program more for the post-credential opportunities than for a genuine
desire to become an “expert.” How does all of this relate to your situation and
also to the current state of Doctoral
Education in Education?
Kurt here....ad;flghsdml;vz;rtlumzcrl/gi;ar,'
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEducational Psychology is a very narrow field. My intent when I first started this process was to become a tenure track professor at a research focused university. Upon realizing how specialized my interests were and learning that the job search is on a national level at most research universities, this caused me some concern because my personal life bounds me to the Richmond area. Being an unemployed Ph.D. certainly could end up being an unintended consequence of picking the wrong discipline to study; however, I now see opportunities for employment outside of a tenure track position. My current approach is to position myself in projects that will give me at least some experience in venues that could make me employable in the future. For example, I volunteered to help construct an evaluation design for the Department of Health and Richmond City Schools, not only to get experience in evaluation design but also as a means of networking with policy makers and stakeholders in the community that could be potential employers.
ReplyDeleteAnother approach that I am taking to my study is to be open-minded about the axiological theory that I adopt for various projects (though I will admit that I had no clue that’s what it was called until after I read the assignments for the week). When considering one of my interests, teacher evaluation, I tend to take more of a Democratic or critical theorist stance in that the goal of the research is to help those involved in the evaluation process develop skills for strategic problem solving and ultimately transform, in my opinion, the current oppressive public policy. However, when I’m working with feedback perceptions in the classroom I lean towards more of a post-positive approach because the goal of the research is to make the practice better and uncover "truths" about the process. I’m not certain if it is possible to reconcile both a critical perspective with a post-positive perspective; however, I see the value in learning about multiple perspectives and using those to guide methodology. It is my hope that professors in doctoral education (particularly at VCU, and I think that they do for the most part) see the value in multiple perspectives and, now that I’ve learned about some of them, allow me the autonomy within my program to develop my own views and incorporate them into my work and studies.
Christine here...
ReplyDeleteAt first glance it may appear as if I am in for the credential. It certainly is a major consideration for going forward. I have teetered between preparing to be faculty at a research-minded University and working directly in the trenches of policy. In order to pursue either avenue an advanced education is necessary. The assignment to define our discipline is somewhat overwhelming. I have realized that while the degree requirements for each of these potential careers is the same the preparation is not.
I agree with Heather's statement that the unintended consequence of pursuing the wrong discipline could prevent my career objectives. I know I want to change the system but I'm not sure which avenue (research or policy) will create the most impact. I'm also not sure which would be my area of strength. The reward for choosing the 'right' discipline would be potential for the change. I've got more thinking ahead of me it seems.
Not so good at limiting myself to "chunky paragraphs." I'll try to be less wordy next time around :).
ReplyDeleteThe term ‘expert’ holds little power or mystique for me. I’ve passed all the ‘expert’ tests, earned the diploma, built a self-identity around label, and been identified as such by people, professional organizations, and even the justice system. I’ve known experts who probably shouldn’t be considered experts and others who think the same about me. I’m married to an “expert.”
The thing I disliked most about being an expert was being required to think in a restricted, predetermined box. A good (western) physician organizes her mind into algorithms of diagnostic studies and therapies. Sure, there is art in figuring out which algorithm should be initiated—the art is in the listening, observing, communicating, and projecting presence. But the actual “doing” is a predetermined, empirical pathway of “standards of care.” Communication with colleagues is prescribed—right down to the language and sequence in which it is communicated. There are best practices for everything and failure to follow them could result in a lawsuit. Reading is focused and actions are oriented, directional, and efficient. How can my reading/writing/research/actions improve my understanding within the context of my field? The opportunities for wild, generative, or interdisciplinary thoughts are limited. Expertise, by its very nature, is disciplined, meaning within and for a discipline.
I have spent the last few years rejecting expertise in a way that has permitted me to define expertise by identifying what it is not. In my years of not being an expert, I have read whimsically, shallowly, and divergently. For example, one week I read a biography of Lyndon Johnson, Esquire magazine, and a book on queer theory and attempted to draw conclusions about life using all three. I admit that I have been undisciplined. But a kind person might tell me that my reading was interdisciplinary, bring to light the fact that, in the beginning, interdisciplinary studies can appear undisciplined--unfocused, widespread exploration for commonalities and bridges between algorithms of thought that are not patently obvious from the outside (and not guaranteed to be present in the first place). “Interdisciplinary” thought can be hard for experts because it requires them to read and think across the boundaries of disciplines. I think this is one area of difficulty for those hoping to achieve expertise in education—education is interdisciplinary.
What of my own situation? I know what it takes to be an expert and, quite frankly, I feel like once you have achieved expertise in one field you can achieve it in another, given enough time, motivation, and good mentorship. But I admit to having a serious commitment problem—I panic whenever I find myself committing to one body of educational literature beyond a single paper or project, because I don’t want to be locked back up into a narrow thought-box. And while I’d like to, I have no idea whether I will be able to finish this PhD program or not because it will require me to commit (and do so soon). I was talking to a (very astute) non-SOE faculty member several weeks ago who told me I needed to stay still in an area of study for more than a minute. He’s right, of course, but I think I might need a little help with that. I need someone to help me to stay still.
Christine here...
DeleteLaura, thank you for being you. Sounds corny but you seemed to capture what I have been turning over in my head since I left class the other night. The term 'expert' carries so much power and seems impossible. Although I have not attained the level of education you have, throughout my career I have been an expert on reading instruction, mental health manifestation and recovery in adolescents, and various disabilities. I felt pressured to continue to learn and study, trying to be responsible for all the information available. Often times what I found was that so many things are inter-connected and to be an expert on a narrow slice was useless. It became more important for me to understand what I knew and what I didn't and then have a plan to collaborate with others, experts in isolation can be dangerous.
So, in essence, being an expert is an acceptance that knowledge is interdisciplinary, no one can stand alone. Reading, exploring and collaborating across disciplines makes us stronger and benefits our fields. I shy away from considering myself an expert because my piece of the world is small compared to all the knowledge discovered every day.
I've worked with those who felt that in order to be effective you had to be an expert on everything. I'll settle for being an expert on knowing that perspective can be more valuable than the contents of a book. Hope this makes sense.
Thank you for your kindness. But I have questions for you :). So how do you reconcile this need for collaboration (the idea that interdisciplinary teams are required to achieve true "expertise") with the turf wars so often experienced in cultures of expertise (obviously I'm thinking of medicine and the hard sciences, but I don't think they are the only ones)? I see the trend for interdisciplinary teams in medicine (lol I think it's a best practice) but I also know there are underlying power imbalances, differences in vocabulary, and general philosophical differences that make many interdisciplinary teams exercises in farce.
DeleteI think a traditional expert is ok with living in a niche. The smaller the niche, the deeper the knowledge, the more "expert" they are. Are you suggesting that in our new world that we need a new definition of expert?????
Hey Girls! I'm thinking on these things too...But don't have any answers. Maybe there are different types of experts?? Some live in their small niche with deep knowledge, others fly a little higher and broader and see more of the big picture. Is that too simplistic?
Delete~Meg
Good Morning Meg and Christine...
DeleteLet's think about this...back in the olden days, experts with small and deep, siloed knowledge were revered. Think about monks who knew how to read...it's not that they taught others how to read, they kept the "how-to" of their knowledge to themselves but showed off their knowledge to the masses by reading the Bible to them on Sundays. Now we are in a world in which knowledge is becoming more and more openly accessible. Anyone can learn almost anything on the web...so where is the expertise? Expertise is in knowing how to apply knowledge. It is process driven, not necessarily (or as well as) content driven. As I think it was Christine (or maybe Allison) said, there is more and more knowledge to know and while yes, experts are expected to know more content, at some point expertise becomes about knowing how to find, process, communicate, and apply that content. As knowledge becomes more plentiful and the problems more complex, interdisciplinary teams are needed. A new kind of process-driven (versus content-driven) expert is born. The information age has driven us towards a new kind of expert. What type of challenges does this type of expert face, and what sort of changes does it mean to our educational system that we need to make these new kind of process-driven experts?
Christine here...
DeleteLaura - yes I think I would say we need a new definition of expert. I agree that with technology advancing finding the information is not difficult. The appropriate application of what we learn becomes the role of the 'expert'. So, on some level they must know the content and how and when it applies. The biggest challenge for this new expert would be the copious amounts of misinformation that advances in technology provide us. Too often, a quick google search answers a basic question with a simple answer when the reality is more complex.
Alison here....I love learning from all of you and you are onto something. The interdisciplinary teams are needed. But, think of how the hard sciences are intersecting with the field of education - particularly special education. Our teams are no longer "school-based". The medical professionals are now crucial and their "expertise" is no longer confined to the walls of the hospital. So, each person has a niche and how they convey their application of knowledge is critical to the group. I like living in a niche and sharing my niche with others. Christine, your narrow slice is not useless if you share it with others. The value of expertise is in the sharing of ideas and perspectives.
DeleteAllison, great addition...but let's discuss. Is life made of niches? Are there hard and fast stops on where things stop and other things end? Of course not--we are in a continuum. I would argue that you do not live in a niche...your knowledge seeps and intermingles into other areas and that niches are an artificial concept that holds us back. The interdisciplinary team is a true challenge...and an amazing area of research and development.
DeleteDiane here -- Laura, I like the way you phrased being an "expert". I often felt that way in my career, and I found that I could be creative within the professional limitations. What I didn't like was how everyone else viewed my job. Everything that others did not want to do became my responsibility, whether it was part of my job or not.
DeleteAnd I'll stand up and shout, if necessary, yes to interdisciplinary teams. We cannot function in a vacuum. And why would anyone want to? Teams, if true teams, are so much more effective that a single individual, regardless of whether the field is business, medical, education or special education. I think teams are more critical in special education because I would want to have doctors and other specialists, and families participating in a student's IEP and educational planning.
Diane, much of your comment below resonated with me as well. It is particularly interesting to me that not only was I boxed up within algorithms (a medicine-specific term to be sure, but I think you know what I mean...schemas would work too) but people put me in a box as to what they believed my abilities were. It is very difficult for people to understand that many of the same skills I used as a surgeon translate quite well to the non-surgical world. People are still too focused on content and not enough on process. Teams are the way to go, but how to make them work the way they should...darn humans with their personalities....
DeleteAlison again....Laura, I see your point. Let me generate a "real life" example to see if this makes any sense. I see children in a therapy setting commonly referred to as the "ivory tower" with the parents present. The SLP in the school system may have a very different view of that student because of the setting and their goals may differ from mine. Our views of the same child vary because of setting, but also due to our training. I am specialized in one area which is not common to training programs for SLPs or Teachers for the Deaf. Our areas may overlap, but they do differ based on the opportunities we had previously. I don't see hard lines. I see varying perspectives relative to the same subject - or student. For example, I view articulation errors as a result of auditory perception weaknesses whereas a classically trained SLP views the same variations in articulation as a constraint on articulatory placement. Same problem viewed differently. So, when we come together we can see a more complete picture of ability. We each have a niche (or expertise) in the same subject, but our viewpoints differ based on our construct. Thoughts?
DeleteAlison once more....Laura and Diane....I agree with the human aspect getting in the way. Egos and turf wars. (I hear a song ...Imagine all the people living life in peace.....)
DeleteDiane here -- Laura and I just had a conversation about blogging. I might be able to get into this one ...
DeleteIt's the perspectives piece that speaks to me. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know something, but just because I don't know it, doesn't mean I stop. I'll go find an answer or find a way to find the answer. I've been a generalist most of my professional career, so I know a little bit about software development and a little bit about process, a little bit about teams and so on. I know a lot about Configuration Management, which sort of makes me an expert, but not always. I know there are people out there who know more than I do, and I know where to find them.
So, the problem-solving aspect of special ed is also what I do well. Does that make me an expert? Not always. If something I'm doing isn't working, then I do need/want to consult someone else. Hence, the team approach.
And, Alison, here's my song: The greatest love of all . . . Education is about teaching people to be all they can be . . .
Alison, first, sorry for the extra "L"... I was typing vigorously. Second...I think we can totally align our viewpoints...I think I understand what you are saying...I'm just suggesting a world in which we can streamline those viewpoints into a multidimensional treatment plan...the interdisciplinary team (done well). But to make that happen, people are going to re-think how they define themselves professionally...old school expertise of niches must go away because it sets up underlying assumptions of " separate" types of expertise. It's kind of theoretical but I think I'm right--we need to reimage revision and retract expertise ..
DeleteDarn iPhones...reteach, not retract...
DeleteAlison again.... The streamlined treatment plan is exactly what is seen in Special Education now - in theory. I have been on the team where we were all responsible for all of the goals and worked collaboratively to move mountains. Once again, we are talking about the same concept, but the "human" aspect is what can hold us back professionally from using our expertise (or knowledge) in a shared forum openly without reservation. No one person has all the answers and all the members can have a meaningful contribution. My question then becomes, is it really that as professionals we struggle with stewardship in the form of our beliefs/misconceptions? I say yes.
DeleteAgreed, agreed....my point is that one of the reasons the human aspect gets in the way is because we all have our expertise territories...we are taught to live in our niche (our discipline). We need to let go of the idea of the niche on a philosophical level. The reason what I'm saying isn't clear is because we don't have language for it yet...I could do an interpretive dance...
DeleteI think you could express yourself more completely in a painting or a garden. Let's raise a glass to ABER! (BTW - that was my favorite part of the presentation!)- Alison
DeleteDiane here . . .
DeleteIndeed. I'm very used to teachers being independent in their own classrooms -- I've seen it in both my own classes and my daughter's. What about Professional Learning Communities? I love the idea. A colleague in Washington State had implemented PLCs a few years ago, and once the teachers got over the lack of independence, they absolutely loved it. More planning time and they could do it together. Fewer disciplinary issues because the teachers could catch issues and pass them along before the student escalated. The whole niche thing or independence should be thrown out. I'd opt for interdependence . . . a team is definitely stronger than one person.
Lol that's why I have chalkboards painted on all my walls--you never know when I'm going to break out the chalk (and it saves me from yelling at my kids for writing on the wall)...to ABER! To raising glasses!
DeleteAlison here……… My new supervisor and I recently had a discussion about my pursuit of a PhD. I commented that I had absolutely no urge to be placed in an administrative role. She commented that once you receive a PhD things change. You are still the same person with the same interests, but all of a sudden you are regarded differently within the field. She has served as a professor, the director of a therapy center, the director of an Option school, and as a director of a department in a hospital. None of these roles were anticipated, but rather were expected once she obtained her degree.
ReplyDeleteAn idea brought forth in one of our readings, which was discussed in Critical Issues with Dr. Gerber, is the transformation we each undergo from being a practitioner to becoming a researcher. It has become more and more apparent to me as I have consumed literature in Deaf education that the researchers are continuing to be practitioners primarily. This phenomenon could be due to many factors. There are a limited number of Deaf education or Speech-Language programs within the United States and even fewer which have a focus on spoken language options. The vast majority of SLP graduate programs have a clinic associated with them in order for the students to acquire the required number of therapy hours so even if you are conducting research you are required to train graduate students hence work directly with clients. My own supervision of several graduate students over the past couple of years pushed me into the direction of a PhD program. So, I entered the program believing I would be on the road to becoming faculty. A more realistic goal might be to teach the Aural Habilitation graduate course at Longwood which is the closest speech-language program to Richmond and conduct research within my current position or jump into that policy ring with Christine.
As far as letters after your name go, I have most of them and they don’t really mean much. I had opportunities in my training which I attribute to dumb luck and I test well. However, I am considered an “expert” in Oral Deaf education within the state. With that being said, I know that my expertise is from a narrow vantage point. I believe that is why I already have a short list of dissertation ideas and a long list of research ideas for the future. I am still trying to decide if this is a good thing or if it will ultimately be limiting in my own pursuit of knowledge.
Jenny here...My issue with the "experts" is that they do all this really good research that has the potential to make a positive impact in the field of education only to have the findings published in a scholarly journal that is only read (sometimes) by other scholars. The findings are not disseminated to the practitioners in the field: the teachers. The article references the article by David Berliner. I have read this article in a previous class and he analyzes things scholars could do better, particularly in the field of educational psychology. One important point that he stresses is the need for scholarly work to be rewritten in practitioner friendly language so that teachers can use the findings to improve educational practices. With this, I 100% agree. Not only will practitioner focused articles help education, but it will also validate the importance of educational research, and, in particular, the important contributions educational psychologists can make to the field of education.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure where this road that is the doctoral program will lead me when I am finished. One thing I know, however, is that I want to make a difference in education, which is one of the reasons I entered the program. It is my resolve to do this by researching important topics that can truly effect change in education. I want to establish myself in the scholarly community, certainly, but I also want to establish my presence in the community of practitioners, as well.
Jenny ~ I really think you have a point about the disconnect between research and teachers. The "scholarly" articles are too often written in such a way as to be inaccessible. It's NOT that teachers are dumb, but rather that the language of research is not mainstream enough to be understood by anyone other than other researchers. The other issue is, I believe, time. Teachers have very little time to catch-up with research. I guess this is what professional development should be for? ~Meg
DeleteHello Ladies!
DeleteIt is also the role of translational organizations--like MERC in education or over on the medical campus, the center for clinical and translational research to help bridge the world of scholar and practitioner.
Christine here...
DeleteMeg and Jenny
It perplexes me as to why so many think that teachers should be responsible for implementing research. In this country the education system is a top-down, policy driven enterprise and in most cases teachers have very little say in changing programs, policies or even curriculum. They do, however, have opportunities each day within their classroom/team to implement strategies and methods of instruction to best meet the needs of the learner. On the flip side, textbooks, reading and math programs, remedial approaches and discipline decisions are often made without them. It is the job of those at Central Office (spending the money on programs to implement) to understand the research and make thoughtful choices. Yes, sometimes teachers are included on committees to make these choices but often times the decision is based on money and time, not research.
In Virginia, there is a list of "research based instructional programs and interventions" that school divisions must choose from. Administrators spend countless amounts of money on programs on the list and yet they continue to fail. Why? There is little to no attention focused on "fidelity of implementation". It is truly a case of purchasing something and then not following up on any of the recommended practices proven by the research itself. This is where teachers can make a difference.
Teachers need to know how to educate themselves on a program/approach, know exactly what needs to be done in order to obtain the proven results. Unfortunately, most teachers just do as they are told/given and end up blaming the program for failure.
After a glass or two of wine (in celebration of my anniversary, see disclaimer below), Meg’s thoughts are as follows…
ReplyDeleteI think one of the unintended consequences in acquiring “disciplinary expertise” is the potential of becoming an ivory tower academic out of touch with the real world, so laser-focused on one issue that you lose perspective. My question is, do you have to have this kind of focus in a Ph.D. program? While I would like to study one tree in the forest for a while, I want to remain aware of the whole forest and maybe even study some different trees. I’m too old to take on a whole new forest I guess, but I imagine I will dream about that as well. Like Laura, I guess I have a serious commitment problem; certainly I’ve held lots of different jobs and even as a teacher I switched grade levels (by choice) several times because I wanted to understand/experience something new. Is studying more than one “tree” incompatible with acquiring disciplinary expertise?
At least at this point in time, I feel similarly about choosing a particular educational theory as “mine.” It makes sense to me that your research question should drive your theoretical perspective (as opposed to your theoretical perspective driving your research question). For example, if you are interested in looking at the success of a particular reading program you might want to do a study with a positivist orientation which focuses on what students learn over time. If you want to see how teachers and students feel about that same program, you might use a constructivist approach; if you are interested in narrowing your study to see how students of a particular ethnic background perceive the program you might have more of a race, ethnicity, and gender emphasis. I see a place for, and value in, all of the various theoretical approaches. (So Heather, I might be wrong, but I would say that yes, you CAN reconcile both a critical perspective with a post-positive perspective. I’d be interested to hear what Kurt says about this.)
Bottom line, I guess I’m a commitment phobe. Or maybe a disciplinary polygamist? Geez, I can’t even decide what track I should be in. Obviously I need this class and some serious help finding “my people.” (Disclaimer: I may be a disciplinary polygamist, but I have been happily married to the SAME man for 21 years today. Woo-Hoo! )
Bruce…
ReplyDeleteUnintended consequences? My journey to continue my education is twofold. 1. I am in a position where I am required daily to make decisions that impact the education of more than 800 elementary school students. I would like to improve/expand my knowledge of education that I depend upon to base these decisions. I should state that I do not consider myself an expert nor do I believe that I will be one at the conclusion of this program. I am humbled daily by the knowledge that I do not possess. 2. I consider myself a practitioner and I am not convinced that I ever want to change. Perhaps an unintended consequence of this degree is finding a desire to move into a broader academic or scholarly position. Presently, I aspire to continue my career progression; eventually leading into educational politics.
Bruce again...
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else pause and reflect upon the statement “educational research is shaped by the phenomenon of its ranks being by-and-large populated by former P-12 practitioners”? I am still wrestling with my feelings and thoughts about this statement.
Hey Bruce,
DeleteI'm not a P-12 practitioner and I'm not sure I'm fully qualified to answer your question, but I'll start the answer thread...I agree with the statement, based on the differences that I see with educational research versus the bench research I'm used to...educational researchers are mired down in pragmatism to an extreme, I believe, and I think it comes to the devotion to remaining part practitioner in their souls. Hard scientists, while somewhat difficult to communicate with (warning: broad generalization), have a little more patience with finding out something just to find it out and then figure out how to apply it or find out the pragmatic application one or two more experiments down the line. I think this comes from the fact that they aren't doggedly devoted to the practice of medicine, for example (because almost none of them were previous doctors...) Ok, hopefully that will stir up some pushback, bring it on :)
Christine here...
DeleteBruce, I too stopped and pondered this statement. I feel as if the author was making a dig of some kind. Personally I am offended by anyone in a position of power over policy or student outcomes who has no P-12 experience. Teaching is not something you learn in a book. It has to be experienced, both the ups and the downs. How can you shape a discipline you have no experience with?
But is all educational research about P-12? Is it all about policy? What about adult education?
DeleteGenerally speaking I agree, Christine... It's one of the reasons I hope to break into med Ed--I have "street cred". But one problem with only having previous practitioners in research is...where's the fresh pair of eyes? To get yourself completely outside the box sometimes you need someone outside of the field.
DeleteKierstn.... Answering the blog reflection question caused me to reflect on my life. I really have no great scholarly reason for enrolling in a PhD program (I simply love to learn in structured environments). I did not begin this journey to become an expert because I think it takes many year or decades to become a true expert. The more I think about it the more I come to hate the term expert. In my opinion the term expert is cocky and arrogant. Regardless of the amount of knowledge I obtain in a particular area, I could never refer to myself as an expert. It’s like calling yourself “beautiful” or “smart” or even “rich” (WTF! Who does that!). Even if someone ever referred to me as an expert I would politely say “Oh, that’s so kind of you. But I am not an expert”.
ReplyDeleteAcquiring expertise comes with many unintended consequences. Many people who acquire expertise in an area are lifelong learners. Lifelong learners often have difficulty staying in one career until retirement. Experts exist because they constantly want to know more. In my opinion, when people become experts’ society often labels them for life. It is as if you are only granted one expertise per life time.
Acquiring disciplinary expertise means that you have to do everything in your power to ensure that your research is ethical and valid. The general public believes that if someone is called an “expert”, the information they provide is correct. Additionally, students can face challenges becoming an expert if the job market is not favorable. An ideal job that a PhD student spends years preparing for may be nonexistent or the student may become over qualified.
I do not spend my time worrying about the possibilities of the future. I am a firm believer that my destiny is predetermined. When I look back on my educational decisions thus far, I realized that opportunities sort of fell into my lap. I had no clue that I would study psychology/biology as an undergraduate and then finish my master’s degree to become a speech-language pathologist (I had initially planned on going into broadcast journalism). After accepting fate I have learned to lose control and let life happen.
XOXO
Kierstyn k.
I don't know Kierstyn...I know plenty of people who call themselves rich. And smart. And even some who call themselves beautiful (but usually only after a few drinks).
DeleteThe other thing is that while a person might be uncomfortable with the label "expert" (although I wasn't...I needed that self-confidence booster just to make it through a day of making life or death decisions for people), the world is going to place that label on people and hold them accountable for it. Doctors get sued. "Experts" in charge of everything from banking policy to levies will get called out before Congress if they make the wrong decisions...Those we call experts often don't have the luxury of denying their expertise because even if they do, the rest of the world will hold them accountable. If you read the forward to one of Daniel Schon's earlier works (1983 I think) on educating reflective practitioners, it goes into the unwritten contract that experts make with the rest of society. Experts get a certain amount of prestige in exchange for taking on a certain amount of responsibility. It is much more detailed and elegant than that, I promise...it's been a while since I read it, but it's worth looking at for an old school definition of expertise. That being said, I think we are in an exciting time of flux on the definition of expertise (see the comment thread below my post above). Expertise is becoming a team sport I think. It's possible that the days of the lone, arrogant expert saving the world one idea at a time might be on its way out...
This question and issue really speaks to the tension between theory and praxis. I think it comes to down to a spectrum. Some folks, scholars, and practitioners will fall along the spectrum at various points. At a basic level, what is the purpose of being an expert? I would think it has something to do with advancing, not only our discipline's literature, but also making the school a better place for student learning and being. Personally, I would always like to have one foot in each area: the academic institution (theory, etc.) and the public school (praxis). My desk, office, etc. may be in one or the other, but I think, organically, they depend upon one another critically.
ReplyDeleteMeera:
ReplyDeleteI am uncomfortable with the idea of an expert in the field. I have always wanted to inform and educate myself more, so that I could be a better teacher. I also believe that knowledge helps us make better choices, not only as a teacher, but also about career options. At the end of my doctoral program, I want to find my niche within my chosen discipline. I want to know ‘my people’ with whom I can collaborate to inform scholarship. However, I realize that my personal experiences and ideologies will influence my research perspectives. Research in the field of special education predominantly uses a post positivist view. While as a researcher, individual experiences of students with special needs catches my attention, which aligns me to the interpretive or narrative perspective of research. Finding my space within these two very different perspectives is going to be my challenge.
I had always considered myself as a practitioner, and my adviser (Dr. Gerber) constantly reminds me that the Doctoral program requires me shift to a more research oriented perspective (Alison, Dr. Gerber told me the same thing). Somewhere, a part of me is still a teacher, who wants to meet each student’s individual need. I am still mulling this idea, as I came into the program with a view that research influences and informs teaching. However, as Jenny pointed out the weak link between scholars and practitioners within the field. Somewhere ideally, I would like to be this bridge, as Shawn pointed out, being in both worlds. Theory and practice, policy and research are dichotomous aspects of the educational system and making choices is not going to be easy. I have been sitting on the fence; thinking about it is crucial, and yet I have no clear answers.
Irina’s thoughts on all this…
ReplyDeleteI feel that my choices in life have been substantially influenced by chance. For my every endeavor I had a general idea of where I wanted to end up, but the fact that I was opened to other options lead me to where I am, which is essentially different than what I envisioned when I started my undergraduate studies.
What is an expert? To me, it is a person who acquired a substantial set of knowledge in an area and is able to be critical about incoming information in the field. This is nice, I would like to get there sometime in the future, and I think that completing a doctoral program is a step in that direction. It would be something to aim for, but expertise comes with experience, and acquiring that would take much more than going through a formal program of studies. My goal for now is to be a good researcher in general, not in a narrow field of my choice. What I would like to be able to do when I finish the program is to aim at any target in the larger discipline of education (by the way, I do believe it is a discipline), and be able to design and conduct a relevant and informed study. Additionally, I would like to pick up a journal article at random and understand, without knowing anything about the topic if it’s good research, meaningful for the field.
My belief is that a Ph.D. degree is by no means an indicator for expertise, and the fact that we are required to produce novel research results in a narrow field is mostly a formality to demonstrate basic research skills. Although choosing a dissertation topic or field is somewhat confounding because it limits the people you have access to, I think a good researcher can often switch paths and focus on a related area.
Coming back to whether education is a discipline. I would argue (maybe incorrectly) that education is an emerging freestanding science that is trying to find its boundaries, in some of the same ways psychology was a hundred years ago. It still has strong ties to other sciences, but it also has specific research methods, even different standards for quality parameters, such as Cohen’s d (this tells you my main philosophical orientation).
There are so many things that resonated throughout the three articles for me it is a little hard with my current professional situation to calm my brain to formulate a coherent statement, but it here it goes.
ReplyDeleteOne of my past principal's gave me two and half hours of his time last night to think through my current professional situation and continual drive for more learning. The continual drive for more learning became a key element in the discussion because as a current P-12 practitioner (Yes, Bruce the statement caused me great pause too) I am often isolated in my school buildings by colleagues because I hold such high expectations of myself on being "current" and knowledgeable about options for best practice. What was pointed out last night was complimentary, but truly difficult to handle. I deal with the contention in the buildings I work in because "I have on blinders" about how uncomfortable this constant, continual drive for learning can make others who choose not to. I am sure this sounds harsh on my colleagues and I do not truly mean it to be, nor did my advising principal mean to be harsh on me, he was simply pointing to an "unintended consequence" of my passion and thirst for learning. It is however making me sad to think about too much right now.
I also struggle with the words "expert", "discipline of a field", and "research" daily. This is because I believe I have knowledge of many elements or "disciplines" in education, but am uncomfortable claiming expertise - especially among my colleagues - in any one area. I guess we pursue doctorates in part to claim expertise in some specific piece of a discipline, maybe even as we go, in the discipline itself, but this is the first time I have let myself consider this all the way. I do want to feel some sort of "expertise", but I am unsure how I plan to share that expertise. I did find myself writing and wanting to keep close Richardson's defintion of "stewards." Mostly I believe because I think I would be much more comfortable to consider myself a "steward of a discipline", it includes the continuing quest for knowledge and understanding, versus the connotations of "expert" which give some finality.
I find the word "research" to be a struggle because it is often thrown around the public schools I have been in with some truly ugly consequences. When a coordinator or outsider comes to a public school and talks about the research they have done or learned from or says "research says" I notice a lot of teachers turning away from the learning they could gleen. This is a difficult spot then for theory in our field, as the articles pointed out. It is critical to have theoretical foundations and I believe what was said about truly needing theory to support my research pursuits, but those in public practice do not make those with the theory and research comfortable or easily able to be heard.
For me, because I do feel timing is everything most of the time, I find myself at a crossroads professionally and considering my passion for knowledge in a discipline (I think I like the vertices better - where disciplines intersect), as well as, the value I see to having theoretical and research based foundations to my practices to be an opening to consider how these pieces play out in and out of public P-12 schools.
Wait...I'm confused. Was your principle asking you to strive for mediocrity? How do we help support you as you attempt to change this culture? Or do you even want to take it on? If so, I'm sure I can find my metaphorical bazooka...it's around here somewhere....Rock on MegCarolyn :)
ReplyDeleteWith your thinking cap on, anything is possible... :)
DeleteChristine
Thinking cap AND bazooka....look out mediocrity, I'm forming a posse and we're going to get you :)
DeleteOh no - he was by no means suggesting mediocrity...he was helping me see why I deal with contention and taking my blinders off so that I do not get side-swiped as much as I do. He actually bought the meal and "beverage" because he still owes me for all the years I continually forced tough topics into the forefront:)
DeleteWell he might not be condoning mediocrity but isn't the culture? But think of it this way...why is he taking your blinders off? Why isn't he trying to get the others to step up and act like you, hmmmm? Bazooka still out....
DeleteMeg-Carolyn ~ I'd love to sit down and have this conversation with you. One of the reasons I left the classroom was this disconnect (incompatibility? How sad!) between striving to be the best teacher you can be and "reality." (I'm not sure I'm phrasing that properly...) I don't blame teachers...Truly they are asked to do more and more each year and there is only time for so much and they have so little control over what they are doing in their classrooms these days. The last straw for me was developmentally inappropriate expectations in K...including wiping out recess twice a week to increase "instructional time." Really???? But as someone pointed out, so much of this is top-down and policy-driven by people who have never taught. I do think there needs to be a way to reinforce teachers who are striving to be their best (as you are) encouraging teachers to move beyond mediocrity....In some ways I agree with Laura that that is the culture. Certainly all teachers don't succumb to mediocrity, but is it "encoraged?" Maybe. Do I need to join Laura with my Bazooka?? Gotta think on this. ~Meg
DeleteDiane -- I can actually speak from experience on that one. I have disciplinary expertise in Configuration Management. I've spent the better part of 30 years acquiring expertise in that area, and when I was actively working in the field, I had no issue with finding jobs. So few people actually specialize, which made it very easy for me to find work. The downside is that people often consider the discipline as add-on, good to have but not critical to running the organization. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And I use those same skills in my education career -- task analysis, designing processes and procedures, and so on. I'm still amazed at how little education uses established practices. It, too, is considered an add-on -- useful, but maybe unnecessary to some people.
ReplyDeleteThe Doctoral Education in Education article spoke to some things, such as most people have undergraduate degrees in Education, which I do not. My background offers both a unique advantage and disadvantage. I understand teams and teamwork (among other concepts), but have had to learn education-related material on my own. It's been a struggle, but 4 years later, and 2 colleges (having transferred to VCU), I understand it far better and have less difficulty with the material. So, I started in Education to teach others what I know, and switched to research and helping others teach students with disabilities to be the best those students can be and live their lives without hardship.
No, really, I tried to calm myself down by walking to the 7-11 to get a big gulp, but this only got me worked up more. What is it about the bell curve? I think about the advantage of status quo and how it affects all of our lives and what it means to be on the leading edge...This is related to expertise and disciplines in several ways. Think about what Kurt said about it being easier for those students whose interests lie smack dab in the middle of a discipline (insert bell curve image here). It's certainly easier to get published because it's easier to figure out what kind of journals will publish your work. That's one example. Now step out to the bigger picture of society and now the experts are at one end of the bell curve...being sucked back in to the easy middle...because we wouldn't want you to make anyone uncomfortable with your questions and your articles....It's a technique of control. Ironic how "experts" have such power in some ways ("Experts say...") but can be reined in by the majority (or forced to restrain their thinking and actions to things acceptable to the majority)...now this is a great conversation to have...
ReplyDeleteDiane here --
DeleteYou know I had this conversation with a fellow doc student. He said that when you get to this level, it's less about grades and more about learning. Once I gave up the idea of grades, I feel a lot better and am able to function. A grade is someone else's measure of my knowledge and subjective. If I can help someone else and use my knowledge and "expertise", then everything I'm doing is worthwhile. For me, it's all about making a difference . . .
Amen to that Diane!! ~Meg
Delete