To install click the Add extension button. That's it.


Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Experts Expect the Unexpected." Roadsign in Nubra Valley, northern Ladakh, India.
Adolf von Becker: The Art Expert
Adolf von Becker: The Art Expert

An expert is somebody who has a broad and deep competence in terms of knowledge, skill and experience through practice and education in a particular field. Informally, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be believed, by virtue of credentials, training, education, profession, publication or experience, to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion on that topic. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound thinker distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.


Research in this area attempts to understand the relation between expert knowledge, skills and personal characteristics and exceptional performance. Some researchers have investigated the cognitive structures and processes of experts. The fundamental aim of this research is to describe what it is that experts know and how they use their knowledge to achieve performance that most people assume requires extreme or extraordinary ability. Studies have investigated the factors that enable experts to be fast and accurate.[1]



The word expertise is used to refer also to Expert Determination, where an expert is invited to decide a disputed issue. The decision may be binding or advisory, according to the agreement between the parties in dispute.

Academic views



In the field of education there is a potential "expert blind spot" (see also Dunning–Kruger effect) in newly practicing educators who are experts in their content area. This is based on the "expert blind spot hypothesis" researched by Mitchell Nathan and Andrew Petrosino.[6] Newly practicing educators with advanced subject-area expertise of an educational content area tend to use the formalities and analysis methods of their particular area of expertise as a major guiding factor of student instruction and knowledge development, rather than being guided by student learning and developmental needs that are prevalent among novice learners.

The blind spot metaphor refers to the physiological blind spot in human vision in which perceptions of surroundings and circumstances are strongly impacted by their expectations. Beginning practicing educators tend to overlook the importance of novice levels of prior knowledge and other factors involved in adjusting and adapting pedagogy for learner understanding. This expert blind spot is in part due to an assumption that novices’ cognitive schemata are less elaborate, interconnected, and accessible than experts’ and that their pedagogical reasoning skills are less well developed.[7] Essential knowledge of subject matter for practicing educators consists of overlapping knowledge domains: subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content matter.[8] Pedagogical content matter consists of an understanding of how to represent certain concepts in ways appropriate to the learner contexts, including abilities and interests. The expert blind spot is a pedagogical phenomenon that is typically overcome through educators’ experience with instructing learners over time.[9][10]

Historical views



In contemporary society, doctors and scientists, for example, are considered to be experts in that they hold a body of dominant knowledge that is, on the whole, inaccessible to the layman.[11] However, this inaccessibility and perhaps even mystery that surrounds expertise does not cause the layman to disregard the opinion of the experts on account of the unknown. Instead, the complete opposite occurs whereby members of the public believe in and highly value the opinion of medical professionals or of scientific discoveries,[11] despite not understanding it.

Related research




In a critique of the expert systems literature, Dreyfus & Dreyfus suggest:


Skilled memory theory




The second principle, the retrieval structure principle states that experts develop memory mechanisms called retrieval structures to facilitate the retrieval of information stored in long-term memory. These mechanisms operate in a fashion consistent with the meaningful encoding principle to provide cues that can later be regenerated to retrieve the stored information efficiently without a lengthy search.

The third principle, the speed up principle states that long-term memory encoding and retrieval operations speed up with practice, so that their speed and accuracy approach the speed and accuracy of short-term memory storage and retrieval.

Examples of skilled memory research described in the Ericsson and Stasewski study include:[1]

  • math enthusiasts who can in less than 25 seconds mentally solve 2 × 5 digit multiplication problems (e.g., 23 × 48,856) that have been presented orally by the researcher.

In problem solving

Much of the research regarding expertise involves the studies of how experts and novices differ in solving problems.[16] Mathematics[17] and physics[18] are common domains for these studies.



Germain's scale

Relative to a specific field, an expert has:

  • Specific education, training, and knowledge
  • Required qualifications
  • Ability to assess importance in work-related situations
  • Capability to improve themselves
  • Intuition
  • Self-assurance and confidence in their knowledge

Marie-Line Germain developed a psychometric measure of perception of employee expertise called the Generalized Expertise Measure.[20] She defined a behavioral dimension in experts, in addition to the dimensions suggested by Swanson and Holton.[21] Her 16-item scale contains objective expertise items and subjective expertise items. Objective items were named Evidence-Based items. Subjective items (the remaining 11 items from the measure below) were named Self-Enhancement items because of their behavioral component.[22]

  • This person has knowledge specific to a field of work.
  • This person has been trained in their area of expertise.
  • This person is ambitious about their work in the company.
  • This person is capable of improving themselves.
  • This person is charismatic.
  • This person is intuitive in the job.
  • This person is self-assured.
  • This person has self-confidence.
  • This person is outgoing.


Scholars in rhetoric have also turned their attention to the concept of the expert. Considered an appeal to ethos or "the personal character of the speaker",[23] established expertise allows a speaker to make statements regarding special topics of which the audience may be ignorant. In other words, the expert enjoys the deference of the audience's judgment and can appeal to authority where a non-expert cannot.


Dialogic expertise


Hartelius calls attention to two competing norm systems of expertise: “network norms of dialogic collaboration” and “deferential norms of socially sanctioned professionalism”; Wikipedia being evidence of the first.[26] Drawing on a Bakhtinian framework, Hartelius posits that Wikipedia is an example of an epistemic network that is driven by the view that individuals’ ideas clash with one another so as to generate expertise collaboratively.[26] Hartelius compares Wikipedia's methodology of open-ended discussions of topics to that of Bakhtin's theory of speech communication, where genuine dialogue is considered a live event, which is continuously open to new additions and participants.[26] Hartelius acknowledges that knowledge, experience, training, skill, and qualification are important dimensions of expertise but posits that the concept is more complex than sociologists and psychologists suggest.[26] Arguing that expertise is rhetorical, then, Hartelius explains that expertise: “(...) is not simply about one person’s skills being different from another’s. It is also fundamentally contingent on a struggle for ownership and legitimacy.”.[26] Effective communication is an inherent element in expertise in the same style as knowledge is. Rather than leaving each other out, substance and communicative style are complementary.[26] Hartelius further suggests that Wikipedia's dialogic construction of expertise illustrates both the instrumental and the constitutive dimensions of rhetoric; instrumentally as it challenges traditional encyclopedias and constitutively as a function of its knowledge production.[26] Going over the historical development of the encyclopedic project, Hartelius argues that changes in traditional encyclopedias have led to changes in traditional expertise. Wikipedia's use of hyperlinks to connect one topic to another depends on, and develops, electronic interactivity meaning that Wikipedia's way of knowing is dialogic.[26] Dialogic expertise then, emerges from multiple interactions between utterances within the discourse community.[26] The ongoing dialogue between contributors on Wikipedia not only results in the emergence of truth; it also explicates the topics one can be an expert of. As Hartelius explains: “The very act of presenting information about topics that are not included in traditional encyclopedias is a construction of new expertise.”.[26] While Wikipedia insists that contributors must only publish preexisting knowledge, the dynamics behind dialogic expertise creates new information nonetheless. Knowledge production is created as a function of dialogue.[26] According to Hartelius, dialogic expertise has emerged on Wikipedia not only because of its interactive structure but also because of the site's hortative discourse which is not found in traditional encyclopedias.[26] By Wikipedia's hortative discourse, Hartelius means various encouragements to edit certain topics and instructions on how to do so that appear on the site.[26] One further reason to the emergence of dialogic expertise on Wikipedia is the site's community pages, which function as a techne; explicating Wikipedia's expert methodology.[26]

Networked expertise


Contrasts and comparisons

Associated terms





Developmental characteristics



Use in literature

Mark Twain defined an expert as "an ordinary fellow from another town".[citation needed] Will Rogers described an expert as "A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase." Danish scientist and Nobel laureate Niels Bohr defined an expert as "A person that has made every possible mistake within his or her field."[30] Malcolm Gladwell describes expertise as a matter of practicing the correct way for a total of around 10,000 hours.

See also





  1. ^ a b c Ericsson & Stasewski 1989.
  2. ^ a b Ericsson et al. 2006.
  3. ^ Gobet 2008.
  4. ^ Gobet & Chassy 2008.
  5. ^ Gobet & Campitelli 2007.
  6. ^ Nathan & Petrosino 2003, p. 906.
  7. ^ Borko & Livingston 1989, p. 474.
  8. ^ Borko et al. 1992, p. 195.
  9. ^ Borko & Livingston 1989.
  10. ^ Nathan & Petrosino 2003.
  11. ^ a b Fuller 2005, p. 141.
  12. ^ Simon & Gilmartin 1973.
  13. ^ Gobet & Simon 2000.
  14. ^ Gobet, de Voogt & Retschitzki 2004.
  15. ^ Dreyfus & Dreyfus 2005, p. 788.
  16. ^ Chi, Glasser & Rees 1982.
  17. ^ Sweller, Mawer & Ward 1983.
  18. ^ Chi, Feltovich & Glaser 1981.
  19. ^ a b Chi et al. 1981
  20. ^ Germain 2006.
  21. ^ 2001
  22. ^ Germain 2006.
  23. ^ Aristotle 2001.
  24. ^ Hartelius 2011.
  25. ^ Hartelius 2010.
  26. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Hartelius 2010, pp. 505–526.
  27. ^ Pfister 2011.
  28. ^ a b "Definition" Merriam-Webster.
  29. ^ Starkes & Ericsson 2003, p. 91.
  30. ^ Coughlan 1954.


Further reading

Books and publications
  • Sjöberg, Lennart (2001). "Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust" (PDF). Risk Analysis. 21 (1): 189–198. CiteSeerX doi:10.1111/0272-4332.211101. PMID 11332547. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-08-08. Retrieved 2017-10-24.
  • Hofer, Barbara K.; Pintrich, Paul R. (1997). "The Development of Epistemological Theories: Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation to Learning". Review of Educational Research. 67 (1): 88–140. doi:10.2307/1170620. JSTOR 1170620.
  • C. Nadine Wathen and Jacquelyn Burkell, Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, VL. 53, NO. 2. PG 134–144. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002. DOI 10.1002/asi.10016
This page was last edited on 29 April 2021, at 15:31