The Changing Nature of Expertise & Authority – Is it Anarchy?

Authority and expertise has changed. Weinberger’s chapter on “The Hyperlinked Organization” in The Cluetrain Manifesto (2004) and his chapter on “Knowledge” in Small Pieces Loosely Connected (2002) both talk about how authority no longer means what it used to mean. There are still top down organizations – with nervous or apparently oblivious leaders whose thrones are shaking – unless they are networking themselves or “unmanaging” as it were.

This change is obvious in the classroom. In my final master’s project I studied some of the changing nature of research skills within college students. Many no longer recognize the authorities that have been traditionally used to evaluate sources. To them relevancy (or convenience) is more important. Just like Weinberger’s example when he compares Helmig and the Microsoft website: students want information that is relevant, contextual, and convenient. They don’t need everything – and they don’t want to weed through a lot of techno-jargon to find them. I feel their pain (but still encourage rigorous research). There is a lot of information out there – with knowledge seemingly hidden like a needle in a haystack.

I’m not saying we should remove all traditional hierarchical structures or expert systems or positions. It is easy for us to argue against bureaucracy, hierarcy, expertise to devalue it, demote it, and not recognize the contributions that they have brought to society, along with some unexpected problematic consequences. There is still value in having experts – and recognition for them; however, there are now new ways of being considered an expert – ways that sometimes lack traditional credentialing.

Not everyone is leaving expertise and authority behind; however they are reshaping it. Interestingly enough, in moving from Wikipedia to Citizendium Sanger (considered, perhaps inaccurately by many to have equalized expertise through the Wikipedia project) is moving towards a more traditionally “expert-based” system. Clay Shirky at the Many to Many blog argues that expertise is simply a social construct. He sees expertise as a problem – where Sanger sees it as an opportunity for growth – for knowledge, for a community, and for individuals who do not yet have expert status. Interestingly enough, while Shirky criticizes Sanger for his stronger leanings towards expertise with Citizendium – Sanger’s is not a purely traditional expertise model. There is an apprenticeship/mentoring component – plus there is almost an honor code with a certain level of self-governing that allows people to self-certify.

Regardless, authority and experitise, if they are not changing are at least being questioned, challenged or ignored. There will be consequences. What do you think they will be?

Specifically, what do you think are the implications of the changing nature of authority and expertise? What will this do to society? To communities? In regards to communities or connections online, does expertise matter? How should expertise be used/employed/defined?

Is this a dangerous experiment? Or just a temporary jaunt towards seeming anarchy? Does it just seem like anarchy because it is different? Is this all just a temporary part of a liminal movement that just needs to run its course before we get back to our (or at least some people’s) comfortable organizational charts?