What is expertise?

Welcome new subscribers! If you like what you read, please consider forwarding this newsletter to someone else you think would enjoy it. And if someone forwarded this newsletter to you please consider subscribing!

There are signals we look for when trying to decide if we consider a source of information to be credible, authoritative, or reliable. Do we recognize that newspaper? Have we heard of the college where that academic works? Are we familiar with the work of this writer? Do we know how other people feel about this source? You may notice that many of those signals rely on fairly narrow ideas of credibility and expertise — and if you’ve been on the internet a while, you’ll likely be able to think of examples where each of those signals of reliability has fallen short. Those signals of authority also leave out a lot of voices and perspectives.

What signals have we looked for?

When working with students and teachers on source evaluation skills I hear a lot of folks try to use domain extensions as a signal of reliability: “if it’s .edu or .gov you know it’s reliable” or “you can trust a website if it’s a .org.” I like to refer to this as vestigial information literacy - it may have served a purpose at some point, but it’s not that useful anymore. College and university websites also host student work (created by students with varying levels of expertise) and can be attached to institutions that publish information that is out of sync with the scientific consensus. Government websites can be abused for partisan purposes. Websites with a .org extension used to be reserved for non-profits, but that’s no longer the case; also, being a non-profit does not make a source inherently reliable.

One thing these signals of reliability ignore is the perspective or bias of a source, which I think is tied to a belief that “reliable” means “unbiased.” Biased, however, does not mean “false.” The majority of information we encounter comes from sources with a bias or perspective - and that bias can come from expertise in a field or first-hand experience with the question at hand. If we limit ourselves to unbiased sources we’re mostly left with encyclopedias. Encyclopedias can be a valuable part of the research process — but if your search begins and ends with reference sources you’re going to miss the areas of discussion and debate that make research interesting. 

What should we be looking for?

One of the six frames of the Association of College and Research Librarians’ (ACRL) framework for information literacy is “Authority is Constructed and Contextual.” The signals we look for to determine authority are dependent on what our information need is and the context in which we will use that information; we look to different markers for health advice than we do for movie reviews (at least I hope we do). And in both those cases, the way an individual or organization constructs their authority is different. I may chat about what I’m watching with my doctor, but I’m much more likely to rely on reviewers I trust (or friends who have similar tastes) to decide what to watch next. And as easy as the internet has made it for us to diagnose ourselves, if I have a serious medical concern I’m going to talk to a doctor.

One of my favorite ways of exploring the nuances of reliability is to look at it through the lens of gossip. When we hear a surprising bit of information about a person (a friend, a colleague, a celebrity) we have to decide whether or not to trust that information. We have to consider:

1. Who is telling us this information? Do they have a track record of being honest? Do they have a history of stirring up drama? 

2. Why are they telling us this information? Is it something we need to know? Are they hoping our opinion of this person will change in some way? How is it relevant to us?

3. What are they telling us? Do we have a complete version of events, or is something missing? Does this conflict with other information we have access to?

4. Does what they’re telling us align with what else we know about this person? Is the story they’re telling us plausible? Would we be able to confirm their version of events?

5. How close are they to the story? Are they always “in the know”? Do they have first-hand knowledge, or has the story gone through several people before getting to you?

All of these questions translate to other types of sources fairly easily. If we’re looking at a news story we likely want to prioritize local reporting over national news. If we’re evaluating a primary source we want to know the relationship the writer has to the events being described. If we’re studying a topic with multiple conflicting viewpoints we need to seek out different perspectives so we can get a more complete picture. Who we consider an expert, and what is considered an authoritative source depends heavily on our information need - which means the first step in evaluating a source is knowing what kind of information we need. 

Who is an expert?

Expertise is highly contextual, as the “is there a doctor on the plane?” meme illustrates (and as a site called Know Your Meme also makes clear). Expertise in one area does not necessarily confer expertise in another context. 

The popular image of an expert tends to be limited to people with a particular background, both in terms of identity and credentials: usually white, usually male, and usually having technical or specialized skills. We know that in the U.S. (and in many other places) whiteness and maleness are marked as neutral, and the ways in which we tend to conflate “reliable” with “unbiased” perpetuates this narrow conception of expertise. That narrow definition leaves out a lot of types of expertise, and a lot of perspectives. 

When working with students I identify a few key types of expertise:

• Professional expertise: 

• Academic expertise

• Writer's/Reporter's expertise

• Indigenous expertise

• Lived expertise

The first two are what typically come to mind when we think of expertise; if you have experience doing the thing or studying the thing, we tend to think of you as a reliable source of information (though we also have a hierarchy of which professions and which universities convey expertise). But journalists with a specific beat (whether that be health care policy, climate change and the environment, or Taylor Swift) also develop expertise. Indigenous expertise has often been neglected and rejected by dominant institutions in a way that has likely limited our understanding of the world. It’s also a kind of expertise I’m still learning more about; if you’re also interested in learning more about indigenous expertise I recommend Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. 

Lived expertise is, of course, expertise that comes from first-hand experience, but lived expertise can inform other types of expertise as well. Part of why diverse teams are smarter is because the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, or other historically marginalized people means that we’re asking questions and evaluating information based on lived experiences that the rest of the team may not share. The perspective and bias of an individual’s lived expertise can make them more reliable and authoritative than someone without that experience. 

The qualifications for all of these kinds of expertise vary, and some of those qualifications will be more important and more specific depending on our information needs. Sometimes that means degrees, training, and other formal qualifications. Sometimes that means looking for someone who has been impacted by the decisions made by those in positions of power. Rather than using a narrow definition of expertise we need to ask who has the types of experiences and perspectives that will help us answer our questions. 

What kind of experts do we need?

It’s also important to note that many questions and scenarios call for multiple kinds of expertise. Sports teams, performers, and construction workers all depend on groups of individuals who have complementary areas of expertise. There is rarely a singular source that will give you all the information you need.  

When consulting experts about a new idea or program we need to be sure we’re considering ALL of the kinds of expertise we might need. In schools, this means looking to research and educational leaders, but it also means looking to teachers and students. Deferring only to traditional notions of expertise can limit our imaginations – and the effectiveness of the ideas we implement. 

Thanks for reading! Want to work with me to help your community develop the skills they need to be savvy consumers and creators of information? Get in touch!