What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance
This book was the first handbook where the world's foremost 'experts on expertise' reviewed our scientific knowledge on expertise and expert performance and how experts may differ from non-experts in terms of their development, training, reasoning, knowledge, social support, and innate talent. Methods are described for the study of experts' knowledge and their performance of representative tasks from their domain of expertise. The development of expertise is also studied by retrospective interviews and the daily lives of experts are studied with diaries. In 15 major domains of expertise, the leading researchers summarize our knowledge on the structure and acquisition of expert skill and knowledge and discuss future prospects. General issues that cut across most domains are reviewed in chapters on various aspects of expertise such as general and practical intelligence, differences in brain activity, self-regulated learning, deliberate practice, aging, knowledge management, and creativity.
918 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
K. Anders Ericsson
25 books393 followersK. Anders Ericsson (born 1947) is a Swedish psychologist and Conradi Eminent Scholar and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University who is internationally recognized as a researcher in the psychological nature of expertise and human performance.
Currently, Ericsson studies expert performance in domains such as medicine, music, chess, and sports, focusing exclusively on extended deliberate practice (e.g., high concentration practice beyond one's comfort zone) as a means of how expert performers acquire their superior performance. Critically, Ericsson's program of research serves as a direct complement to other research that addresses cognitive ability, personality, interests, and other factors that help researchers understand and predict deliberate practice and expert performance
Currently, Ericsson studies expert performance in domains such as medicine, music, chess, and sports, focusing exclusively on extended deliberate practice (e.g., high concentration practice beyond one's comfort zone) as a means of how expert performers acquire their superior performance. Critically, Ericsson's program of research serves as a direct complement to other research that addresses cognitive ability, personality, interests, and other factors that help researchers understand and predict deliberate practice and expert performance
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 12, 2023
Is it not true that in order to become an expert, one must study previous experts? Thus to become an expert in expertise, one must study the works of the experts of expertise. Indeed, it seems it would make sense to read The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance.
The fundamentals, as always, are imperative. What deems an expert varies.
A most excellent model is the three dimensions of expertise, those being individual accomplishment, esotericity, and exposure to tacit knowledge (Collins 2013). For example, experts of expertise may discover matters which become foundations of expertise, they are confined in the general class of going through the hurdles and exclusivity of academia, and the tacit knowledge may be minimal as a result of being a highly explicative field with clear ramifications and connections to normal life (that is, relative to something such as quantum mechanics). On a scale of 1 to 3 for each, it may approximately be measured correspondingly as 3, 2, and 1, making expertise of expertise only average among other expertise or at least within the confines of such a model.
Another avenue of modeling would be social interactions (Mieg 2001) between experts of expertise and non-experts. For example, non-experts have the problem of desiring or needing to develop expertise, non-experts may but do not necessarily attribute the role of experts of expertise, non-experts expect knowledge of expertise from experts of expertise, and experts of expertise possess the expertise on expertise. The demand is fulfilled by the supply.
Socially, experts of expertise are likely derived least from being contextual, elite, or relative, are derived only somewhat from qualifications, proven experience, and roles with organizations, and are derived most via demonstrated performance such as influential research. Using the distinction of routine and adaptive experts (Hatano and Inagaki 1986), experts of expertise would mainly be adaptive experts. An established fact is that "experience alone does not guarantee the development of expertise" of expertise. Experts of expertise may be said to spend most of their time in performance rather than in practice. Lastly, given there are objective measures for various variables (that is, relative to something such as the arts), this permits expertise of expertise to be well definable.
However, other matters are more interesting: Who will be the experts among the experts of expertise? Shall what they discover be something so unfathomably novel and useful, could it be that the thing they discover is the very thing which brought it about, or vice versa? To what degree does knowledge of expertise, or expertise of expertise, permit expertise in other domains?
The motives of reading this were simply that learning how to think optimally is futile if not learning how to execute optimally. Although there was too much theory and not as many practical tips as one might hope, it was quite useful to learn of the world through such an important lens.
The fundamentals, as always, are imperative. What deems an expert varies.
A most excellent model is the three dimensions of expertise, those being individual accomplishment, esotericity, and exposure to tacit knowledge (Collins 2013). For example, experts of expertise may discover matters which become foundations of expertise, they are confined in the general class of going through the hurdles and exclusivity of academia, and the tacit knowledge may be minimal as a result of being a highly explicative field with clear ramifications and connections to normal life (that is, relative to something such as quantum mechanics). On a scale of 1 to 3 for each, it may approximately be measured correspondingly as 3, 2, and 1, making expertise of expertise only average among other expertise or at least within the confines of such a model.
Another avenue of modeling would be social interactions (Mieg 2001) between experts of expertise and non-experts. For example, non-experts have the problem of desiring or needing to develop expertise, non-experts may but do not necessarily attribute the role of experts of expertise, non-experts expect knowledge of expertise from experts of expertise, and experts of expertise possess the expertise on expertise. The demand is fulfilled by the supply.
Socially, experts of expertise are likely derived least from being contextual, elite, or relative, are derived only somewhat from qualifications, proven experience, and roles with organizations, and are derived most via demonstrated performance such as influential research. Using the distinction of routine and adaptive experts (Hatano and Inagaki 1986), experts of expertise would mainly be adaptive experts. An established fact is that "experience alone does not guarantee the development of expertise" of expertise. Experts of expertise may be said to spend most of their time in performance rather than in practice. Lastly, given there are objective measures for various variables (that is, relative to something such as the arts), this permits expertise of expertise to be well definable.
However, other matters are more interesting: Who will be the experts among the experts of expertise? Shall what they discover be something so unfathomably novel and useful, could it be that the thing they discover is the very thing which brought it about, or vice versa? To what degree does knowledge of expertise, or expertise of expertise, permit expertise in other domains?
The motives of reading this were simply that learning how to think optimally is futile if not learning how to execute optimally. Although there was too much theory and not as many practical tips as one might hope, it was quite useful to learn of the world through such an important lens.
April 25, 2008
Ed. K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness,(both of Florida State Univ.) and P.J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (both of Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition). 901 pages. Anthology of 42 scholarly articles on various aspects of expertise, divided into six sections: overview; methodology; acquisition/maintenance of expertise; research methods; domains of expertise (professions, arts/sports/motor skills, games) and generalizable mechanisms mediating expertise <--fascinating section) I read 18 of the essays. My favorites were: "The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Expert Performance," by K. Anders Ericsson; "A Merging Theory of Expertise and Intelligence," by John Horn & Hiromi Masunaga; "Modes of Expertise in Creative Thinking: Evidence from Case Studies," by Robert Weisberg; "Professional Writing Expertise," by Robert T. Kellogg; "Educators and Expertise: A Brief History of Theories and Models," by R.J. Amirault & R. K Branson; and "Aging and Expertise," by Ralf Th.Krampe & Neil Charness. I also read about "Expertise in Medicine and Surgery," by Geoff Norman, Kevin Eva, Lee Brooks, & Stan Hamstra; "Expertise in Software Design," by Sabine Sonnentag, Cornelia Niessen, & Judith Volmer; "Social and Sociological Factors in the Development of Expertise," by Harold Mieg; "Decision-Making Expertise," by J. Frank Yates & Micheal D. Tschirhart; "The Making of a Dream Team: When Expert Teams do Best," by Eduardo Salas, Michael A. Rosen, et al; and other articles.
Overall, expertise is defined as 1)requiring usually ten+ years of "deliberate practice" (K. Anders Ericsson's term) to acquire; 2)being linked with increasingly depth and breadth of knowledge/skill in a specific domain; 3)improving with age (!),until some decline in one's 70s--as contrasted with non-expert learning/performance, which begins to decline in early adulthood; 4) requiring lifelong deliberate practice to maintain. There are both differences and similarities across domains of expertise, as one would expect.
Overall, expertise is defined as 1)requiring usually ten+ years of "deliberate practice" (K. Anders Ericsson's term) to acquire; 2)being linked with increasingly depth and breadth of knowledge/skill in a specific domain; 3)improving with age (!),until some decline in one's 70s--as contrasted with non-expert learning/performance, which begins to decline in early adulthood; 4) requiring lifelong deliberate practice to maintain. There are both differences and similarities across domains of expertise, as one would expect.
Want to read
September 28, 2012probs a bit dry, consider one of these two:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...
(written by ericsson as well)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78...
(more journalisty)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...
(written by ericsson as well)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78...
(more journalisty)
June 1, 2007
Quite good. Everything you wanted to know about being good at anything.
August 4, 2018
I cherry-picked because half of the book was on research methods in education.
What I've learnt: One can get better in certain fields, such as math and music, with zeal and (a lot of) hard work.
What I've learnt: One can get better in certain fields, such as math and music, with zeal and (a lot of) hard work.
February 19, 2016
Just read selections from this book.
Shelved as 'to-read-if'
August 22, 2011Recommended in a review of a book on developing intelligence and talent.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews