Based on the above discussions it seems like expertise might also inhibit new perspectives. In other words it seems reasonable to support the suggestion referred at the beginning of this chapter, ‘[t]he expert can become so entrenched in a point of view or a way of doing things that it becomes hard to see things differently’ (Sternberg, 1996, p. 347). However, this view is strongly criticized by K.A.
143
Ericsson, who states that, ‘the common belief that expert performance is fully automated is completely false’ (Ericsson, 1998, p. 90).
K. A. Ericsson is one of the main researchers within the field of expert performance and has for instance edited the book The Road to Excellence (1996) that includes chapters written by prominent researchers like Robert Sternberg and John Sloboda. He recognizes that practice in some cases might lead to an entrenched perspective, but holds that expert performance is the result of a process that deliberately avoids automated behavior. Thus, the main tool to avoid an entrenched perspective is ‘deliberate practice’ that includes some kind of reflective monitoring of the training and working process: ‘[T]he key challenge for aspiring expert performers is to avoid the arrested development associated with automaticity and to acquire cognitive skills to support continued learning and improvement’ (Ericsson, 1998, p. 90). Ericsson is not only connecting deliberate practice to expert performance, but also to creativity in general.
[T]raining does not stifle creativity but rather provides the tools and knowledge to empower the experts to be more successful and effective in their daily work and
facilitate their search for innovative ideas, especially those rare ones that go beyond the current knowledge and practice. (Ericsson, 1998, p. 95)
Accordingly, people that are able to perform ‘deliberate praxis’, might reach the level of expert performance. However, if ‘deliberate praxis’ is not applied, then an entrenched perspective, including automatic behavior, might be the consequence.
Ericsson is focused primarily on training and performance. For instance, one of his key examples is the violinist Paganini, who developed a new playing technique through a process of deliberate praxis (Ericsson, 1998, p. 95). However, this approach to training seems to be equally relevant with respect to other types of creative processes. In other words, deliberate praxis might also be relevant in regard to music-making and improvising. Thus, some composers might deliberately choose to compose in new ways in order to develop new ideas. According to Ericsson’s theory, that would partly explain why some composers are able to be creative while others are not.
144
Ericsson’s main project is to show that training is the most important element on the road to excellence rather than talent or some kind of mysterious connection to a source of inspiration.
From a methodological point of view, his approach might be criticized for at least two reasons. First, Ericsson might have confounded correlation with causation. The fact that successful performers, inventers and artists have spent many hours in training does not necessarily mean that this is the key reason behind their success. Second, Ericsson is first and foremost preoccupied by the recognized successful performers. In other words, performers who have trained all their life without gaining any form of recognition are not part of Ericsson’s investigation. In other words, he does not include a form of control group in his study.
Nonetheless, I find Ericsson’s account interesting and fruitful in the sense that it seems to correspond to the working methods of recognized creative people. As mentioned in the very first chapter artists like Lars Von Trier and the members of R.E.M. all seems to develop new working methods in order to escape a potentially entrenched perspective or automatic behavior. The same trend is evident in the empirical material produced in this study. In the interview with Cæcilie Trier about her upcoming album (see previous chapter) she states:
‘This time I make the lyrics as the first thing. I have newer tried that before. The melodies become quite different’. Equaly, Sandra Boss describes how she intentionally promotes mistakes in order to facilitate new sounds and compositions. Similarly Louise Nipper describes how she participates in different workshops in order to try out new methods of composition. And in the below, the professional composer, Nicklas Schmidt, explains how he sometimes invents new ways of composing in order to escape from automated behavior and develop new ideas.
In order to get new ideas I often improvise on the piano. I let my fingers work. I try to find something with my fingers. I turn of my brain. However, sometimes the problem with improvisation is that you just produce the same kind of material over and over again. Therefore, I sometimes invent new ways of playing. For example, I cross my arms so I am playing with my right hand on the lower keys and on the left hand on the upper keys. Or, I decide that my left hand is only allowed to play on the black keys and the right hand is only allowed to play on the white keys. Or both hands have to play two
145
octaves simultaneously. I am not doing these kinds of experimentations to create strange music. I only want to search for new ideas. (Interview, Nicklas Schmidt, 2013)
6.8 Summing up
In this chapter, different approaches to expertise have been presented in order to understand the role of experience and knowledge in creative processes. In that respect, a number of key terms have been discussed, including reflection, intuition, consciousness, and embodiment. In the chapter I constructed a distinction between approaches that seemingly highlight the role of conscious reflection and approaches that emphasize the role of body and intuition. Further, I constructed a distinction between theories that reinforce a body-mind dichotomy and theories that try to put aside this dichotomy. Finally, I discussed how expertise can lead to an entrenched perspective and how such entrenched perspectives may be avoided.
In the chapter, empirical material was presented, and it was argued that neither the mind-body dichotomy nor the holistic approach to behaviour may be rejected, but rather combined. However, the discussed phenomena still represent paradoxical elements and seem difficult to comprehend and describe sufficiently. In Part Five these issues will be discussed futher.
146
Chapter Seven: A social perspective on learning
7.1 Introduction
Dreyfus, Schön, Polanyi, Sennett, and Merlau-Ponty are primarily preoccupied by expertise from an individual point of departure. Thus, such thinkers and researchers have been criticised for ignoring the social perspective of learning (e.g., Andersen 2011, p. 23). In the following, I will seek to examine creativity and expertise from a sociological/social perspective. Primarily, the theory of
‘communities of practice’ will be the centre of the discussion. There are several reasons for this.
First, the theory holds a key position within the field of learning. Second, Klaus Nielsen has done a very relevant investigation of the Royal Academy of Music based on the theory of communities of practice that seems to correspond to a number of issues addressed in this study. Besides, I have had the chance to discuss the theory of communities of practice with Etienne Wenger, one of the founders of the theory, which has given me a unique opportunity to explore the potential of this specific approach to expertise and creativity.
The chapter falls into two parts. First, the implications of communities of practice are discussed with respect to the reproduction and production of practises and norms. Next, identity and communities of practice are discussed with respect to the facilitation of creativity. Finally a case study is presented.