Expertise and Systems practice

[Dave H]

There are some interesting and valid point's in Jim's post. However I consider that the ascendancy of the Anglo-Saxons over the Celts is more of worldview issue rather than due to any real differences. I consider that the Romans were a veneer for a short period on a society that existed for a very long period. If you look at the differences between a Celt and an Anglo-Saxon the differences appear to reflect changing fashions rather than real deep significant changes. It can be difficult to explore their religious views and how they undestood the world but it seems that the Celts and Anglo-Saxons had similar beliefs.

[Teiana]

a veneer?

[Dave H]

I do not believe that the Romans had any significant impact on the native population and a lot of the Roman insitutions such as towns failed to survive their departure 1,600 years ago. Can't say more as I have to rush to catch the last boat to leave the country.

[Andrea]

Thanks Jim -- very useful summary!

I'm trying to think now about the implications of what you said with regards to "expertise". If the idea of the democratisation of the intellect is for individuals who have gained 'extra' knowledge to have an obligation to spread this knowledge within one's community, then does this not nullify the role (and power) of experts? the implications are that everyone should be simultaneously engaging in learning and teaching.

It's interesting to think that, in teaching systems thinking and practice, I am undermining my own position as an 'expert'. indeed, I create a situation wherein I can start learning from people who were once my students

[Neill]

that everyone should be simultaneously engaging in learning and teaching.

Sounds great. And I agree that it is the best way.
Look at those around you who are continuing their learning. Are they not the ones taking the time to try and explain to others.
I forget the exact figure but of 270 people at our headquarters, well over 10% are currently in part time education or recently took time out to learn. These are the people I see "really" teaching those around them.

It is not those who got a fancy title 20 years ago. They are fighting to retain their knowledge as the key to their positions.

[Andrea]

I forget the exact figure but of 270 people at our headquarters, well over 10% are currently in part time education or recently took time out to learn. These are the people I see "really" teaching those around them.

It is not those who got a fancy title 20 years ago. They are fighting to retain their knowledge as the key to their positions.

There's something very profound here -- it's about the schizophrenic nature of education. On one side you have individuals who have engaged in lifelong learning and are more than happy to help others to learn too. On the other side, you have other individuals who engage in learning, but value the qualification more than the actual learning, and see it as a ticket into positions of exclusive privilege and power. It's Eric Fromm's "to have or to be?"

Andrew Abbott has done some fascinating work on the "system of professions", where he looked at how education creates the divisions in expert labour. He argues that "qualifications" are often used as weapons to keep people out of professions, rather than bring people into them. I still remember your story, Neill, of why you are compelled to study for an OU degree: your boss knew that you had the experience and capacity, but not the "qualifications" for higher management. Hopefully your boss has now realised that you'll get a lot more out of studying with the OU than just a piece of paper that allows you entry into his "club"..........

[Neill]

Good news. The T307 page is down at the OU. That is good because I promised to spend this morning on my TMA. But now I can't so we can philosophize.

On one side you have individuals who have engaged in lifelong learning and are more than happy to help others to learn too.
On the other side, you have other individuals who engage in learning, but value the qualification more than the actual learning, and see it as a ticket into positions of exclusive privilege and power.

And then you have the others. They "are more than happy to help others to learn too" but at the same time " see it as a ticket into positions of exclusive privilege and power". This is probably the Neill position on this one.
I enjoy helping others to learn (teaching sounds so "do this, do that") and am really excited about the young shooting stars that are on their way up and will finish well above me. But at the same time I enjoy the additional income, nice car, neat toys and international travel and am glad that I "earned them" by studying. I don't even feel guilty about it because I honestly believe that I give the company very good value for money.

He argues that "qualifications" are often used as weapons to keep people out of professions,

And I am sure that he is correct. Out on the Savannah there is only so much food and so many females so the established lions drive off their rivals. In society there are only so many legal cases so the lawyers need to keep their rivals at bay. The other professions do the same.

knew that you had the experience and capacity, but not the "qualifications" for higher management

which meant that he carried all the risk when I screwed up. Now I have some pretty pieces of paper so he could point to those if I lose us millions.
A bit like if your plumbing was leaking and you needed some one to fix it. If you chose some one with a bit of paper saying plumber then you could at least point to that when he flooded your house.
What I have learned is to persuade/push those I identify as future stars in to further education. My experience has directly led to a younger colleague now being back in part time education to get the next qualification that he needs to move up again.

Hopefully your boss has now realised ...

He has just given me a major project in an almost impossible time frame involving building a new plant on one continent and moving products between two others. He obviously trusts me to do the difficult things.

[Teiana]

What I have learned is to persuade/push those I identify as future stars in to further education.

i definitely ought to have done the OU thing a lot sooner than i did. But then i wouldn't have met everyone on T214....

Years ago only a tiny proportion of people ever had a university education and now i think the proportion is quite high, i imagine a situation very soon (if it hasn't happened already) where continuing education isn't actually an option - where it becomes an expected norm. We've lost a lot of the manufacturing jobs.. no idea how things will be once everyone's far too educated for the jobs they're expected to do.

[Neill]

Yesterday I was out for a long walk (this being "ill" has advantages) and was considering this problem.
I was sort of doing a sign graph in my head and I kept ending up back at the point "fear".

Fear of losing the job if
- people realize that there is a more effective way of doing things.
- some one better comes along.
- some "upstart" gets better than you
Fear of losing prestige (and money)
Fear of being relegated.

Most of us in employment support a life style commensurate with our income.
Most of our families expect us to bring in the money to pay to live as we are used to.
If we lost our jobs or had to take a major reduction in wages, this would be a problem (because we have so many fixed costs - mortgage, etc.)

So most people are not "neutral" in their outlook on their jobs and the employment situation. In reality most people are fighting to retain their "status" and thus their income.

Maybe a 50 year old with up to date skills (studying at OU for example) can afford to be a little more relaxed about all this than some one who last updated their knowledge 25 years ago?
Maybe this is also a reason why 60 year olds seem willing to "give" you their knowledge? They are no longer competing.

Just some thoughts.
Neill

[Teiana]

i feel like i could waffle all day about experts and knowledge and power and control and fear and vulnerability and all that, but it's just sending me in circles. The only 'safety' anywhere seems to be if you can be constantly able to adapt to changes in your environment.. minute by minute.. maybe less.. people who are good at handling change could end up being the real 'experts'..not people with knowledge or even, maybe, people with skills.. (as many skills become obsolete, so even though skills might be more 'useful' than knowledge, they aren't 'safe').