Experience, Education, Expertise?

Something happened this week. I was contacted by someone enquiring about a treatment. When I replied and offered some input around their concerns, they advised that since messaging they had decided they would prefer to work with someone with more years of experience. That is, of course, absolutely their choice, and I respect anyone who is able to advocate for what they feel they need. I can also completely understand that, if you have a specific issue you want addressed, you may feel more comfortable choosing someone with many years of experience in that particular area. It did, however, get me thinking about how we define experience and expertise.

One of the assumptions was that I was relatively new to the profession. While I don't have decades of experience, I’m certainly not newly qualified. I have worked with a wide range of individuals, undertaken continuous professional development, achieved a distinction in my training at the highest level available, and I also work as an educator for trainees.

Which brings me to the question: where does the balance lie? Because, while experience absolutely matters, I don't think the number of years someone has been practising should automatically be seen as the benchmark for ability.

Take this example. I used to go to a lovely hairdresser who had been working for many years. She had a huge amount of practical experience, but hadn't undertaken much additional training and only worked one day a week. Over time, I realised that the experience she had accumulated wasn't necessarily translating into the results I was looking for. I eventually went elsewhere. That isn't to say that her years of experience weren't valuable. They absolutely were. But experience alone doesn't necessarily equate to expertise, and expertise isn't necessarily determined by how long someone has been doing something.

I know many therapists, teachers, practitioners, counsellors and other professionals who have only entered their professions in the past few years and are absolutely exceptional at what they do. Equally, there are people who have been in their fields for many years who may have become complacent, fallen out of love with their work, or simply found themselves going through the motions. And, of course, the reverse can also be true.

The growing trend for people to qualify in particular methodologies or approaches without necessarily having the wider knowledge or experience to understand when, how or why they should be used, can’t be ignored. But being qualified in something doesn't automatically make someone an expert either. Perhaps the answer isn't to focus solely on how many years someone has been practising. Look at their training. Look at their continued professional development. Look at whether they keep learning and researching. Consider their approach, their experience with the particular issue you're looking for help with, and don't be afraid to ask questions. I would always recommend getting in touch and asking. Some practitioners are phenomenal in their modality, but that can sometimes not translate to social media, websites, newsletters. Years of experience can tell you something about a practitioner, but they don't tell you everything.

Ultimately, I think the best practitioners, regardless of how long they've been in their profession, are those who remain interested, continue learning, know their limitations and genuinely care about doing the best they can for the people they work with.

I’d love to know you thoughts and whether you have a preference to experience or education…