In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
I am in the middle of graduate school and I'm having trouble seeing myself as an "expert" in some very niche part of this field. While true, I'm still early in my career, but the jump from being a grad student to being a proto-colleague to my professors is intimidating and scary. I'm just having trouble figuring out what is required for "Expertise" in some field. Is it that I should be able to know relevant conversations? Is it that I should be able to contribute, in an informed matter, to conversations? I'm supposed to publish as a graduate student to get a job but I'm also trying to show mastery of some literature which, clearly, pull in different directions.
If I try to scour all of the relevant literature, I run the risk of not having any publications at the end of my time in grad school. If I publish extensively, then I run the risk of not knowing the relevant literatures required to be an "expert". I'm sure there's some balance in between that we must strike and that those who are successful do strike - but it just is so difficult to balance.
For those more advanced in this field, how do you define expertise?
As a former grad student, I empathize with the OP, but I wonder if they are overthinking things. I've never tried to define 'expertise' for myself, and throughout much of my early career in the field, I never felt like much of an expert. Indeed, my sense is that "impostor syndrome" is a common experience in grad school and among many early career faculty. Because of this, I've always just tried to keep learning, engage in (and learn from) conversations to the best of my ability, and produce the best written work I can given what I do know--again, with an aim of always improving. But, of course, this is just me, and maybe others have grappled with these kinds of issues differently.
Do any other readers have any relevant experiences or insights of their own to share with the OP?
Recent Comments