University of Jyvaskyla (FINLAND)
About this paper:
Appears in: INTED2019 Proceedings
Publication year: 2019
Pages: 4171-4175
ISBN: 978-84-09-08619-1
ISSN: 2340-1079
doi: 10.21125/inted.2019.1041
Conference name: 13th International Technology, Education and Development Conference
Dates: 11-13 March, 2019
Location: Valencia, Spain
In everyday contexts it is common that terms ”expert” and ”expertise” are used with a lightweight arguments. At the same time expertise is questioned, we do not have clear and shared understanding of the content of the concepts. In general, who is an expert and what is expertise?

In academic context all concepts must define precisely, and terms are used exactly. So, even term expertise needs to specify explicit. In academic contexts and specially in doctoral education expertise is main ambition. In doctoral studies expertise is on the other hand general expertise knowledge and on the other hand it is highly specialized expertise. I divide expertise into four dimensions based on Ericson (2006) and Hakkarainen (2004; 2017) theories. Expertise consists of theoretical, practical, socio-cultural and self-regulatory knowledge. In addition, expertise is a continuous endeavor to solve even more challenging problems, experimenting the boundaries of expertise, and collaborating in multidisciplinary teams.

This study focuses on doctoral students experiences. How doctoral students experience different dimensions of expertise and the construction process of expertise? What dimensions of expertise are emphasized in doctoral studies and how they are actually constructed? In addition, I ascertain whether the doctoral students are aware of the dimensions of the process of their own expertise. The material consists of nine doctoral students from Finnish universities, from different disciplines. The material has been acquired by themed individual interviews and analyzed by qualitative content analysis.

According the results of the study, theoretical knowledge is almost a self-evident dimension in doctoral studies according to doctoral students. Practical knowledge was refined by participating in the applicable disciplines in different field of science. Socio-cultural knowledge was developed when participating in networks. Then doctoral students had opportunities to process silent knowledge and to understand infinitely important how the theoretical and practical knowledge interfaces. Self-regulatory knowledge formed a dimension that was not deliberately controlled. Self-regulatory knowledge was increased independently, alongside both failures and successes. As a whole, all the different dimensions of expertise were linked close to doctoral studies. Doctoral degree and expertise were both seen from the point of view of continuous and process-oriented.

The results of the research emphasize the meta-skills of the doctoral student and the importance of reflecting on one's own expertise. In a competitive and busy academic context, the guidance of meta-skills should not ignore, but remember the humanity and sustainable development of the doctoral student and expertise.
Expertise, doctor, doctoral student.