danah boyd argues that the valuing of expertise of (lived) experience is behind some/many of the factors leading to/events happening because of the post-truth world.
I think there's something here in connection with organisations, management, "coal-face" workers, academia and the enterprise university. But the question of how it plays out in a university - full of supposed experts - would be interesting.
In the context of job applications this post defines expertise and experience. With expertise being a superset of experience. i.e. expertise arises from experience. The questions are
- How much experience certain experts have in certain contexts?
- How much do contextual characteristics lessen the value of expertise?
- What does expertise abstract away from context that is deemed important by practitioners?
- What is lost in that abstraction process? Is it important or not?