It is widely argued that the skills of scientific expertise are tacit, meaning that they are difficult to study. In this essay, I draw on work from the philosophy of action about the nature of skills to show that there is another access point for the study of skills—namely, skill transmission in science education. I will begin by outlining Small’s Aristotelian account of skills, including a brief exposition of its advantages over alternative accounts of skills. He argues that skills exist (...) in a sort of life cycle between learning, practicing, and transmitting, which provides reasons to think that we should pay close attention to the way skills are transmitted in teaching and learning. To demonstrate how a study of skill transmittance can be revealing about the nature of skills in expertise, I explore an example—what I identify as the skill of tension-balancing in model-building. After describing the skill, I briefly examine two case studies from the science education literature that reveal insights about the skill of tension-balancing as it functions in the practice of model-building. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to discuss a parallel in the thinking of STS scholar Sheila Jasanoff and philosopher Adam Elga. Although both subscribe to the norms of their respective discipline—Elga using a priori conceptual analysis and Jasanoff conducting empirical case studies—they both reason in similar ways regarding epistemic hierarchy in political controversy. They argue that controversial questions are enmeshed in such a way with political framework that there can be no purely epistemic evaluation of expertise. This conclusion is (...) unexpected for a parallel between STS and philosophy of science since it is not based on a normative theory of expertise. While there has been collaboration between the two fields in the wake of the so-called “third wave” movement in science studies, the parallel discussed in this paper opens up the potential for collaborative research based on a skeptical view of expertise and epistemic authority. (shrink)

In this article, we clarify and describe the nature of nursing expertise and provide a framework to guide its identification and further development. To have utility and rigour, concept‐driven research and theories of practice require underlying concepts that are robust, valid and reliable. Advancing understanding of a concept requires careful attention to explicating its knowledge, metaphors and conceptual meaning. Examining the concepts and metaphors of nursing expertise, and how they have been interpreted into the nursing discourse, we aimed to synthesise (...) definitions and similarities between concepts and elicit the defining characteristics and properties of nursing expertise. In clarifying the concept, we sought to move beyond the ambiguity that currently surrounds expertise in nursing and unravel it to make explicit the characteristics of nursing expertise from published peer‐reviewed studies and structured literature synthesis. Findings indicate a lack of clarity surrounding the use of the term expertise. Traditional reliance upon intuition as a way of explaining expert performance is slowly evolving. Emerging from the analysis is a picture of expertise as the relationship between networks of contextual reasoning, understanding and practice. Striking absences in the discourse include limited explication of ethical reasoning and theorising a broader interpretation of expertise reflective of contemporary forms of nursing. (shrink)