Crafts(wo)men and Guilds: Expertise Development among Science Education Researchers John Settlage, University of Connecticut Adam Johnston, Weber State University Julie Kittleson, University of Georgia In the beginning, this was going to be a story about a renegade working conference for science educators. Then it became a narrative about young scholars seeking to deepen their craft. Now, we find ourselves involved in an ongoing disquisition about revival and relief, about care and critique, and listening and laughing. However, we are ahead of ourselves. We should begin by examining expertise development. Much has been written about the production of new researchers. We often refer to David Labaree (2003) and his views about the peculiarly problematic process by which new education researchers are prepared. He described the struggles he witnessed teachers undergoing as they attempted to navigate their ways into the academy. Among the legion of difficulties, he highlights the shift from personal to intellectual perspectives about education, the push to extend beyond the particular to consider the universal, and the need to avoid privileging the experiential over the theoretical. For as strongly as these resonate with our own transitions and those who we supervise, the emphasis is on bridging the various divides during doctoral studies — but not beyond those times. Even with the many resources about mentoring doctoral students (e.g., Eisenhart & DeHaan, 2005; Pallas, 2001; Weiland, 2008), there is a distinct lack of similar assistance for those who are in the post-dissertation and pre-tenure phase of their careers. We feel this a critical juncture in each academician professional trajectory. Given the substantial investment in the recently-minted PhD (by the individual, by the family, by the faculty) it seems negligent to leave individuals to navigate new careers, most often in unknown environments. As an assistant professor beginning a career at a new institution, very few of the supports contributing to a successful dissertation defense are still available. While this situation parallels concerns about teacher induction (Allen, 2003; Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2008), we assert that becoming a professor is considerably more stressful given the ambiguous expectations as well as the lack of oversight. At the core of this study is the concept of professional development, particularly with educational researchers and especially with those in science education. In short, acquiring expertise as a science education researchers is equivalent to developing as a craftsperson. It felt as if there were similarities in the advancement from novice to apprentice to journeyman. Engaging in a sociological consideration of professional development necessitates drawing upon sources outside the mainstream educational research literature. We selected Richard Sennett’s 2008 book The Craftsman as our guide. CRAFT AND GUILDS The work of a science education researcher combines knowing, acting and discerning in a manner that blends technical skill with intellectual ingenuity. For example, someone practicing the craft of science education research must grasp research methods, demonstrate analytic skills, acknowledge related lines of inquiry, and apply theory-laden perspectives of science teaching and learning. While we typically associate the iterative relationship between thinking and doing as a clear indication of pragmatism (Dewey, 1938; Dickstein, 1998; Menand, 2001) when Sennett (2008) describes craftsmanship, his words resonate with a view of our profession while it is being performed well: Craftsmanship names an enduring, basic human impulse: the desire to do a job well for its own sake. … Every good craftsman conducts a dialogue between concrete practices and thinking: this dialogue evolves into sustaining habits, and these habits establish a rhythm between problem solving and problem finding. The relation between hand and head appears in domains seemingly as different as bricklaying, cooking, designing a playground or playing a cello. (p. 9) We wish to add “science education researching” to Sennett’s list of domains because those who practice this craft develop sustained habits in which the hands and head work in concert with one another. Included within such craft are the processes associated with writing and composition: writing up research (Wolcott, 2008), writing as a way to learn (Murray, 2002), and even rewriting (Flick & Lederman, 2004). These are extremely demanding yet capricious endeavors and there is no consensus about what is required in order to become a quality writer of educational research (cf. Karmler & Thomson, 2008). And this does not even begin to breach the challenges of conceptualizing and designing research. Becoming a successful academic in science education requires much more than producing research; there are many challenges against which an individual must persist. (Hurtado, Eagan, Cabrera, Lin, Park & Lopez, 2008). This is all to argue that becoming recognized as a craftsperson is incredibly challenging. Gladwell (2008) claims that the time requirements for developing true expertise adheres to the ten thousand hour rule. In brief, experts require ten thousand hours of practicing and perfecting their craft in order to become an elite within their field. Since doing educational research is not within the normal purview of classroom teachers (Labaree, 2003) the clock that counts down from ten thousand hours begins at the start of doctoral studies but would not reach its conclusion until an individual is at least halfway through their assistant professorship — well on the way toward a tenure decision. Craftsmen and craftswomen rarely hone their skills in isolation. A lone artisan working by himself runs counter to Sennett’s description of a craftsman. Instead, there usually is a guild in which individuals refine their skills in association with