3.5 Teaching Yourself

Ok, you have finished your PhD, you did one or two graduate theses, perhaps several lit reviews, perhaps one big experiment, etc. You might have TA'd one or more courses. You might have taught one or more courses. This is all great. As far as it goes. You should sit back and seriously reflect on what you have learned, what skills you have developed and where on the expertise scale does each sit. You might be called an expert but this might be in the general, society usage of the term. Are you a real, REAL expert? When will you be an expert? What exactly are you an expert in? How do you improve your expertise? Knowing these things will help you be a better researcher and teacher.



In this note, we will use research expertise as the main theme, but the same points apply to any area of expertise, including expertise about pedagogy.

Here are some thoughts about expertise...

• Do not think you are an expert just because people call you one. You might be more expert than they are, but that does not mean that you are a true expert on the cognitive scale.
• You might indeed be a true expert in something, but you are not likely a true expert in multiple topics, or an true expert with all of the methods and techniques you have been taught and used as part of your thesis.
• You might be a true expert in your specific thesis hypotheses, and depending on how the methods and techniques are used, you might be at the senior level for a specific method, probably not above that, and if you only used one method, once, in your work, you are still likely a novice compared to someone who has used multiple methods and techniques in a similar situation over decades. The true expert has breadth, depth, and demonstrated success repeatedly. You do not get this via a thesis.
• There are also levels within the expert level. There are experts in applying, using methods. Doing the mechanics. We call these experts with a little 'e'. The next level of expert are those who help others understand how to use the methods and concepts. They know how to interpret and guide the application. This level, experts with a big 'E', is usually capable of doing derivative and iterative research, contributing to the body of knowledge for the topic area, in constructive, yet minor ways. The third level are the experts who make the science, the Grand Masters, the real pioneers of stature, create a field, are the first. In any field, there are relatively few Grand Masters, the disruptors, the true innovators. Someone can call themselves an innovator or pioneer, others can call them innovators and pioneers, but self-claim and praise does not make it so.
• You can be a pioneer and innovator with a small 'p' and a small 'i'. Small p and small i researchers are in the second category, the big 'E' experts. The big P and big I's are the disruptors, the ones that get noted in acknowledgments as inspiring and creating the field or subfield. They often do multiple seminal works, not just one. They are rare.
• Any field needs all three levels of experts and each level serves its purpose and is a good value add to society. Not everyone has to be a Grand Master or a big E expert. Most 'research' academic units are expected to be filled with big E experts. Certain institutions will have multiple Grand Masters, but considering the size of any mature field, there will be a small population of Grand Masters and it is not feasible or reasonable to assume that every institution has a Grand Master in every department, for every discipline.
• A big 'E' expert is expected to be able to: teach, sole supervise graduate students in the topic, publish credible and impactful research in the topic, 'review peers', referee, and examine budding little 'e' experts. A big 'E' expert is someone, that with time and experience can probably be an Associate Editor for a respected journal in the field.
• If you are fully qualified (by generally accepted standards for schooling, demonstrations of skill, expertise) in more than one discipline, can do all of the above list with credibility, you can probably be considered an official, expert polymath. Your expertise can be different in each area: you might be a little 'e' in one or more, a big 'E' in some, a Grand Master in some.

• Expertise is often discipline related. Disciplines are big things, not characterized by minor differences. Journals and societies are indicative of a discipline. Special grants and funding programs is another indicator. Programs in a faculty, research groups are also signals. Sub-disciplines are a grey zone. Usually a discipline (with a big D) is not a special interest group within the society, or a casual reading group. The sub-discipline can be respected as a full discipline if the group has international, external recognition with its own journals, conferences, etc. The sub-discipline should also require years of specialization and learning that others in the big D would not expect to have; if it is to be considered a discipline in good standing. Not just a few months, but a major research agenda, significant, long term, sustained effort in the little 'd'.
• Characteristics of a Grand Master in academia are beyond the scope of this resource to dive into. But you can think of the senior individuals in a field and reflect upon their accomplishments. For example, is their work just cited, or is it actually taught in courses and it is actually used in other research as part of the foundation? Have they been the head of a society? Have they created respected journals, conferences, and workshops? Have they published textbooks based on their own original work widely used and referenced? Is their work cited in a way that suggests it is foundational, seminal? Is the individual used as an international external examiner? Does the individual give keynotes, special activities considered out of the norm for the average academic? These types of things. There are dozens of impact factors which can be thought about beyond the simple pub and citation count; combined suggesting that someone is demonstrating more and more mastery. A little 'e' will have few of these characteristics. A big 'E' is likely to have a few of the points. A Grand Master is expected to have probably at least 2/3 of the points you can think of. Some of the points are limited by context, but a true Grand Master will have many examples of impact and recognition; not opinions, but evidence. Someone might be a big fish in a small pond, but a Grand Master is a big fish in the largest pond.
• Very few graduate students are exposed to multi-disciplinary research to the expert level, and fewer do interdisciplinary work.
• Multi-disciplinary implies that you are well schooled in more than one area, to a high level, not just knowing how to use something, but be able to be an expert in it. You can do concentrated research in the field and publish in the field as an accepted member of the tribe. This type of research does not require skill in multiple areas at the same time. To claim multi-disciplinary expertise, you should be able to point to formal training (or equivalent of learning from, working with someone in the field, not just self-study), courses taught, students supervised, and peer reviewed publications in each.
• Interdisciplinary takes it one step further, doing research and skills across disciplines, in parallel, doing cross-pollenation, not just of the mechanics, but of the concepts and theories to the point of creating a new theory, a new model that bridges across the disciplines. This research can be very disruptive and seen in a positive light, extending the field, or it can be seen as a threat to those who have gone on before. While the former type of disruptive research extends the field and does not threaten anyone's view of self, the disruptive, destructive creative research that proves the world is not flat can be perceived as threatening by those who received credentials (grad degrees), were promoted and praised based on the flat earth theories. Often it is the interdisciplinary research (individual or team) that brings together enough of the pieces to draw outside of the box and show that the world is not flat. An individual doing cross-disciplinary research at a credible level would by definition be multi-disciplinary. Not all multi-discplinary researchers are interdisciplinary.
• In today's world, there is further stratification within category. That is, there are different types of big 'E' experts. For example, how many lit reviews were actually done as a sole responsibility? How experiments? How deep was each topic? One year? Part of a year? Two years? Three? Four? There are different types of dissertations and research, each with a different profile of how the research skills developed. There are significant differences between spending a year or so on a topic and spending four years. The style impacts the breadth and depth of the lit review, theory development, experimentation, results, and analysis.
• In a way, self-development of a certain level of expertise and the ongoing expertise development is a similar problem faced by language teachers when dealing with teaching within a specific context. This topic was addressed by Knianzian and Khromchenko (2019) and they argue that a competency approach is important for teachers to develop additional expertise. Higher education instructors should consider such approaches for the topics they teach, as well as the act of teaching itself. Self-development. Ongoing development. Competency driven.

Here are some thoughts about developing your expertise...

• Assess what you have done. Know how deep you have gone, how broad your knowledge base is. Develop a realistic understanding of what you know and what you do not know. And, if you think you know it, how does this compare to someone with another six, twelve, eighteen years in the same field with deliberate practice, learning, adapting, learning. It is possible to spend 25+ years in a field and still be at the novice level of cognitive skill. Sad when this happens. Sadder when individuals equate time spent with expertise and have a self-perception of expertise. Lastly, know what you need to know and what to learn.
• Recognize that if you have only done something once, you are probably at the little 'E' level (perhaps not even that).
• Figure out what areas you need to develop expertise in, do more deliberate practice in, further develop your cognitive skills.
• Consciously do some of the 'tasks' yourself, thinking about deliberate practice, feedback, reflection. It is easy with some of the tasks simply manage and direct after the degree is done. How many researchers do another full lit review, dozens of them? Or, do they direct their students. How many do the grunt work and perform experiments themselves? Or, do they simply supervise and look at the students' results? How many of them will spend two or four years to learn a new field?
• If you do not do the learning, you will likely flatline and this will impact your career and activities, and those you are supervising and teaching. As a professional, you should be striving to improve all of your base skills and take them up a notch. You cannot really improve your own driving by being a passenger in the backseat. You need to drive and 'do things' to improve.

• We suggest a portfolio approach where a percentage of the overall task is 'supervisory', but there are other whole activities which are actually done by the individual. For example, a researcher will have topics that they work on with peers, but do not have the help of graduate students. The 'old' folks will have to actual 'work'. In teaching this can be marking, working the help desk, working in the lab, participating in the tutorials.
• Invest in yourself. What we often recommend is to pick a topic, any topic and invest two years (4-6 hours each week) doing a deep dive into it. Does not have to be intellectual, can be things like sharpening knives for example. Does not matter. What matters is learning, learning to learn, honing your skills in finding good sources, true expert based material to trust, developing enough knowledge to comprehend the subtle bits, analyse, think it through. After two years, move to another topic. Do not pick a topic to dive 'because it will lead to x career or promotion'. Bad idea. It should be about other values. If you do this repeatedly, over a long horizon, and do it in a deliberate practice, reflective way, your research and thinking skills will improve. You will likely go from little 'e' to a big 'E' and perhaps a grade or two into E land. Going to Grand Master is a different issue. However, you can really get better. Something that would take two years at one age, can eventually be 2-3 months three decades later. Thinking and research related tasks are cognitive skills and are no difference from other cognitive skills. In some cases, the topics might be complementary and some have a time delay - something looked at in decade 20xx is a good foundation for something in 20yy.
• We have some simple tests to know if you have 'learned' enough to move to a new topic. Would you pay someone for what you can do? Would someone pay you to do what you do? Can you hold your own with a domain expert for an hour's discussion without the domain expert having to explain things to you? Will the domain expert tell you after the discussion 'you get it'? These are our tests. In some cases, the topic is extended, the role is changed, and things are taking to the big big E level or Grand Master, but this cannot be planned.
• We did this process accidentally for many years. Without intent or design. It was not reflected about or thought about consciously until recently. In hindsight, it looks brilliant. During some periods, two or more topics were being dived into in parallel. Some topics ended up being long term topics to pursue. Over many years, you can imagine the number of topics that were explored, learned about. A few were work related, some startup related, but many were not. This has resulted in a very odd depth and breadth that helps when teaching, and when doing research. It is amazing how ideas bounce from one topic to another. If the extended dive had not taken place, the threads and linkages would not have been seen. This also helps you take risks, push your comfort zones and work with students on methods and ideas not normally in your wheel house. Of course, you cannot go crazy here, but you can certainly push your normal constraints.

Further reading

• Kniazian, M., and O. Khromchenkom (2019). The ESP Lecturer's Self-Development Competence in Higher Education Context. The Journal Of Teaching English For Specific And Academic Purposes, 7, 3, p. 385-393.