- If the expertise we're receiving comes at a bad time (in the context of each of us having a life to live), is that legitimate expertise? (Question of timing)
- If the expert comes across as unapproachable and closed minded, is that an actual expert? (Question of relating)
- If the expert's response to a need for expertise works against how our minds assimilate and utilize expertise, where is the effective expertise located? (Question of collaborating)
- If the expert system assumes a problem created by that system can be fixed by more of the same expertise, how can that system be upgraded? (Question of diagnosing and changing systems)
These questions help us discern how expertise seen as a persistent object makes something out of nothing. A view of persistent objects disregards these questions (and many others) to maintain its entrenched power. The spaciousness of further questions, wonder and mysteries gets shut down. There's nothing to process while the routine procedures call for compliance. Decisions can be made fearfully, rather than comprehensively.
When we view expertise spaciously, its location is complex and constantly changing. There is often expertise in the lives which define good timing. There is expertise in being able to reach out, empathize and relate to those without credentialed expertise. There is always expertise in the ways our minds function which invite us to work with those dynamics effectively. There can be expertise to challenge and change expert systems which are creating problems and perpetuating misdiagnoses. With so many possible locations for expertise, it appears we are really moving around between conceptual and perceptual spaces which give rise to further questions to explore with a vast array of effective processes. Expertise is much better located in this spacious questioning than in credentials, stances or persistent objects.