Do we use the term 'Expert' too loosely?

I agree that it is far too easily abused. I do think that there is a level of context that must be considered. It should not be considered the apogee or pinnacle of knowledge but rather within a close range of it. It isn't an absolute.

First, within an organization, there are often experts who are the most knowledgeable in a subject area within the company (or even within a room at the moment). They may not be experts within their industry, but they are within 'the building' and often that is the best (and cheapest most available source) of expert information.

Secondly, 'expert', when ever it's used as a self descriptor, should be viewed with great skepticism. This is not to say that it can't be true, but nothing clouds (if not obliterating entirely) self criticism as much as ego does.

Thirdly, if enough people with good critical thinking skills (barring the caveats above) deem someone an expert, then they may be a true expert.

Forth, any true expert can stand up to questioning their expertise providing two conditions are met, the questioners must be willing to accept that they could be wrong in their assumptions, and secondly that the expert is judged on the accuracy of their answers to the questions and not on the speed of them.

Lastly, expertise in one area should never be presumed to automatically be presumed in a connected area.

Hey Charlie! Great question, and yes we do. I suspect you already had that pat when you asked the question, though. LOL

We do allow people to self-proclaim their expertise sans thorough vetting in certain venues, though not all. For example in the diet/nutrition industry, every idiot is an "expert" if they make the same empty and unsubstantiated claim as every other expert idiot in the field. This is so prevalent that the BBC reported Sept 21, 2011, "Researchers say the reason so many of us relapse and fail on diets is... not our fault but that of experts, because the advice they give us is flawed."

It is true also in other fields marketing to folks with a degree of desperation.

In other markets driven by a need for performance, it becomes a little more difficult to be proclaimed expert. You might actually have to know your stuff.

What it takes to earn the recognition, then, varies by field.

However, what it means to truly be an expert is constant. It is a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

That 'comprehensive' part is important. It means that 'expertise' cannot be too narrowly focused, but rather much realize all of the ways it interacts holistically with the various processes and systems surrounding the area of expertise.

Finding an expert, then, requires vetting the individual with well rounded questions, and it involves doing enough personal research to see through any BS answers and recognize the real goods.

Together, let's put the fun back into work!
Belldon Colme
belldon@belldoncolme.org

I am wary of anyone who describes themselves as "expert," and warier still of anyone who calls themselves a "guru." These adjectives are far more credible when people use them to describe others--and preferably not a spouse or relative.

An attorney I worked with recently reminded me that there are professional prohibitions on the use of the word. In Virginia, where I live, an attorney is proscribed from referring to himself or herself as "expert" in anything. The more agnostic ". . . specializing in maritime law . . . ." or similar must be used.

In other professional service disciplines, it would be helpful to have similar restrictions, but I don't see it happening. . . and now, I will check my LinkedIn profile . . .

I agree that the term Expert is easily used/abused. E.g., "Subject Matter Expert" --- what makes a SME? Years of use? Sophistication? Willingness to add to a Knowledge Management system?

We throw the term about with little regard to its meaning. Specialization is not the same as expertise. Exposure or one or two instances of experience do not equate to expertise.

There are, by the way, legal implications to use of the term, which has led some firms to prohibit its use at all.

Anyone claiming expertise or expert status on his or her own behalf is immediately regarded as a blowhard or a buffoon in most quarters.

just for the record, www.dictionary.com defines 'expert' as "a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority." and also for the record, you're all 'experts' in my mind. and finally for the record, i definitely use 'experts' loosely.

If you believe "stereotyping" exists, same goes with branding one an expert.
Well, certainly whether you ignore it or not, stereotyping really does exist
which is one reason why the world has been chaotic...
one is simply not given a chance to prove himself.
Now, how does this relate to branding one an expert? Simple.
Both are more on the "discriminatory" judgement of a person...
this means, "most" who brands one an expert "just likes" the guy
compared to others who could be more "expert" in the real sense.

This is @TheGreatLight.