Image via CrunchBaseWe live in a society that worships specialism. We look to our 'experts' for advice and to share their depth of
knowledge in all fields. Yet, anyone can describe themselves as an
expert, or a guru, specialist, consultant etc etc. What does this
mean? What are the qualifications you need to become an expert in
something? How can we separate the charlatans from the real deal? Does
a white beard, spectacles and tweed make you an expert? Does a
certificate that says you have been through a factory process of
learning suffice? Do the scars of battle gained through years of bitter experience give you the credibility you
need? And why do we need experts - can't we just find all the answers on Wikipedia anyway?I'm being facetious here, of course, and I know that we are dependent on specialists to move science and technology forwards. They are the people that have made many of the things we take for granted in our world possible. However, as much as we need specialists, we also need those who have breadth of knowledge...and in a strange way, despite the great leaps we've made in terms of enabling access to information for the masses, it's the generalist that seems to be undervalued in society.
Our education system, for example, is a funnel designed to narrow and deepen your field of knowledge as you progress. This channels us as learners to the point where, on completion of a PhD or post-doctoral research we may be the person in the world who knows most about the secret life of cardinal beetles, the etymology of lapidary terms, or the social impact of 'The Only Way is Essex'. Noble causes all, I'm sure, and of course we need these specialists and their work chipping away at the coalface of human understanding, but we must take care not to idolise them.
Whatever it means to be an expert we know we need them, but sometimes seem to forget that we also need generalists. We need people who can make connections between disparate fields to create new ideas and possibilities. An education system predicated on the need to narrow and deepen knowledge may result in a society with extremely able scientists and technologists, but breadth of knowledge is, for me, equally likely to be the source of ideas for truly disruptive innovations. The American college system seems to do this so much better than we do. A liberal arts degree will give a student the freedom to explore human understanding in a way that is personally relevant and yet interconnected. Here in the UK there are similar options available, but they are not the norm, and not valued as highly by some. We seem wary of anything that does not lead our students on a path towards specialism because of the reverence with which we view the expert.
We can't all be polymaths of course, with a great deal of knowledge in a number of fields, but in a world where the tools to gain a breadth of knowledge are freely available to the vast majority of us we should be better at encouraging a broader view of learning.
