Holding Expertise in Equal Measure

What’s wrong with expertise?

Nothing! We all rely on and benefit greatly from the fact that some people devote their careers to developing a deep understanding of a problem or solution. From the perspective of a team or network of actors trying to address a complex problem in a constantly evolving environment, the question is this: When and how do we engage expertise? When does that expertise move us forward to deeper understanding and stronger results? When and how does it get in the way of learning and adaptation?

You can think of complex social change as being like a team sport. You can benefit from having a brilliant coach or star quarterback or team captain, but you can’t win a game by just following their directions. It requires the perspective and agency of all of the players on the field to win a game. Each player needs to have the goal in mind and the freedom to adjust to what they see in front of them, guided not just by individual expertise, but by the wisdom that comes from the whole team’s collective experience.

What does it look like to “Hold Expertise in Equal Measure” in practice?

The presence or absence of ‘Expertise in Equal Measure’ in an initiative or project can manifest itself in a number of ways. Here is what we have observed:

• If it’s present: We recognize and value people who hold different sources of knowledge. We ask what people, perspectives, and ways of knowing are missing from a conversation or organizational decision-making process. We balance multiple perspectives and are transparent about how decisions will be made, and what information will be used to guide them. We acknowledge and make visible power, privilege, and positionality in groups or organizational decision-making processes. We pursue transformational relationships which allow groups or participants to learn with and from one another over time.
• If it’s absent: We privilege education, credentials, or job title as the source of credibility. We over-rely on a single type of knowledge or expertise. We accept a single notion of “truth” about a topic and assume there is only one right way. We allow hierarchical meeting dynamics that reflect implicit racial, gender, income, or other bias. We pursue transactional relationships that create a single opportunity for participants to exchange information.

How Emergent Learning practices support this principle

The practices of Emergent Learning work together to support holding expertise in equal measure:

• Emergent Learning Questions encourage two-way learning dialogues more than one-way ‘transfer of knowledge.’ They encourage groups to make visible and question underlying assumptions.
• Emergent Learning Tables are designed explicitly to invite all sources of insight — from research or evaluation data, from expert recommendations, and from personal experience — to be brought ‘to the table’ to reflect on together. They can be used to make meaning of external inputs (e.g., evaluation data) by comparing them to lived experience and then thinking deliberately how to take them forward into the work ahead.
• Action Hypotheses encourage teams to remember that, in complex and dynamic environments, no one solution is “right” for every situation. It reminds us that any strategy or approach or recommendation is a hypothesis to be tested and refined to meet our changing situations.

Holding expertise in equal measure helps us bring all of the wisdom in the room to the table; it helps us develop our best possible thinking about how to tackle the complex challenges we face in achieving social change.