Experts who rule the world of
If existed “Table of ranks“ presently, it would be made much more difficult. It should include in it also today those who give a public assessment to activity of the colleagues and an external situation. Really, it should include experts in the Table of ranks of the 21st century.
That the expertknows
Tables of ranks are not present today - and, probably, will not be. But experts exist - however what their role and function consists in as become these experts, not all up to the end understand. Let`s try to penetrate into sense of their work. >
It is considered p that the expert is the person who is faultlessly understanding the business or even the sphere with which it is directly not busy, but to studying of which devoted a lot of time and forces. And its task - to analyse the subject, to tell about it and to make recommendations that it is necessary to improve.
the branch Chosen by it can be both very narrow, and extremely wide. There are experts in dairy yogurts or war of 1812 - and there are experts in foreign policy or advertizing. The field of expert activity happens different.
However anyway the expert understands that is represented by history of that subject in which he is engaged what situation now in what there are problems and what ways of their decision it is possible to offer. He hammers out not only the facts, but also the structural party of business. At the same time - it is attentive to details: knows, for example, leading experts in the area, and both Russian, and foreign.
the Position of the expert has to be extremely impartial, objective, but as a result and works of the expert drawing up opinion is result, this opinion can be just challenged. Yes, there are spheres in which proofs are the facts, - in particular it concerns area of the right, medicine or, for example, mathematics. However the more difficult the branch, the more opinions on it can develop when you consider it deeply.it is simple or difficult
?Only from outside it seems to
that everything is clear: there is, for example, a law, there is an offense, the criminal and sanctions. And, it seems, the expert only needs to analyse what he sees and to give some judgment. If he is not involved in process, then it seems that it will turn out absolutely easily, such person has no own direct interest. But in something its work is even more difficult, than activity of the auditor checking an economic condition of the enterprise. The expert should work with a set of subjective factors, accidents and regularities imperceptible (at first sight).is later than
A when all this is analysed, it is necessary to invest analytical material with words or reports - and to realize that your opinion can become the basis for decision-making. It is huge responsibility. If the expert - the person public, his verdict can be sounded in mass media. Yes even at the level of the enterprise additional loading is connected just with the fact that it is necessary to invest the conclusions with the convincing and logical speech. The expert has no right to afford conjectures and guesses - otherwise he will not be believed just.As very many can express to
narrow-minded third-party opinion, the expert is obliged to explain, than his position differs from banal common sense. At the same time the common sense also has to be present at its work: both at the level of the prerequisite of judgment, and in respect of conclusions. But there has to be also something bigger - almost scientific depth of approach. Why “almost“?
the Expert has to be able to analyze a situation deeply and precisely - however he is not a scientist. In what here distinction?
In - the first even if the subject of examination is not connected with pragmatical activity, the expert nevertheless is not a theorist, but the practician. If the scientist works on an increment of scientific knowledge, then the expert is engaged in clarification of facts of the case and formation of applied recommendations. The theory can serve as part of justification for his opinion, some evidential base - but as a result the new theory does not manage turn out if only it does not appear part of system of actions of a subject of examination.Experts in something justify with
existence of scientists in public space. The opinion of different experts can testify whether the deceiver the scientist - or he pursues science seriously. Such information can be made public in the most scientific community - and can become property of the general public. And in it one more distinction is also shown: if the scientist can conduct research only on the objective facts, stories and - partly - according to modern prerequisites, then the expert is obliged to take into account all situation completely.
the Third distinction is that the expert cannot give uncertain opinion - whereas for scientific work not the solution of a question, and its specification or statement of a new question quite often is result. And it is natural to the field of science as it is clear that after one scientist another which will be able to continue business of the first will come and to look for truth. And the expert is not able to afford such luxury of transfer of function. If the group of experts works on any subject, then in the collective they, of course, can be tormented with doubts - but eventually their activity is obliged to resolve these doubts. Even if they understand that other group of experts previous or future, will give most likely other result.
However it does not mean at all that the opinion of the expert can be any. On the contrary, just both randomness of judgments, and an involvement say that before us the inhabitant, but not the expert. However, calling the expert the expert, we would make a big mistake.
Not only the expert
Of course, the person is obliged to understand the business. And it can even combine expert and professional employment partly. But there are moments which prevent to play these two roles at the same time.
the First such moment - psychological. If the person perfectly knows as how it is necessary to do, and is capable to realize it, then why he is not engaged in direct activity? The expert at full understanding that it is necessary to do cannot call himself the only or most preferable candidate for the performer`s position. On the contrary, he can offer including the personnel decision. For example, if the market of hours is investigated, then the expert analyzes system of production at the main enterprises, then carries out the analysis of sales markets - then tells who can help with the solution of the revealed problems and what it is worth aspiring to.
Besides, being the practicing professional, the expert himself appears the interested person. If the speech about competitors comes, then hardly it will be objective in the judgments. Another thing is that and in the enterprises there are experts who, being busy with a certain work, at the same time are rather competent to express also the company, and a condition of branch in general, to comment on the events important for this purpose, than they are engaged, to form a certain image of and the organization. Such expert appears in a public field more often. And then it should compete with other experts who speak here already.
By the way, not always publicity is the benefit. Quite often activity of the expert can be apprehended negatively. For example, if during research he finds out that the same yogurts, toys or clothes are made from low-quality raw materials and can be rather harmful, than are useful, hardly it will be pleasant to the inspected company. Communities of experts, the organizations for which examination is the main kind of activity can tell many stories in which the expert judgment was the reason for threat. But it does not mean that activity of the expert so is difficult and dangerous. And does not mean at all that it is not necessary to be engaged in it. whetherto Become
It is possible to learn to be the expert? The simplest answer to this question is connected with initial property of this kind of activity. It is necessary to define or choose the sphere of the interests, and the earlier you will make it, the better. And to that there are two reasons.
In - the first, you will have more time and opportunities deeply to study the chosen direction.
In - the second, the decision once made at all not necessarily will remain to yours forever. It is quite possible that just the first and second choice will be unsuccessful, and through some time you will understand it. Of course, it is better that it occurred earlier, and not later.
It is important that your attention has to be directed not only to the theory and the historical background, but also it is not exclusive on daily practice. The good expert pays attention to all these areas - and also watches new events in the branch. If he is engaged in cars, then he not only by heart knows history of different brands, chronology of models and the principle of work of the car (the last, by the way, is optional), but also, having seen news about the next merging of concerns or release of new model, will be able to explain why it occurred. And consequently, he is able to give the forecast and advice for the future - to both the buyer, and the company.
So far you not the expert but only you study, just should be attentive and curious to details and the general processes. Along with books and practice, experts, and also branch mass media can help with it: magazines, websites, newspapers. At first their contents can seem too difficult, but over time, the more you will know, the more interestingly, and in something there will be more simply for you many data. It is important to pay attention to opinions of experts. First they will seem full and indisputable - but, understanding more deeply what happens in the Wednesday chosen by you, you will find out that you in something do not agree with the expressed opinion. Such disagreement will want to be proved, investigated, understood. And expert activity also begins with it a time.
Of course, no superficial studying will replace vocational education, and also practice. The expert has to understand specifics of work from within, its most part never gets to a zone of public attention. In parallel it is necessary to learn to speak, and to say not so much brightly how many it is logical and convincing. You are going to become not the writer or the journalist, but the person who even in the form of the dry report is capable to transfer important and useful information. And if further the speech comes about public representation of the opinion, then it is already necessary to study methods of rhetoric, to watch how you build the speech.***