Can we, should we, need we agree on a definition of giftedness?

No, no, no!!! I am so tired of hearing the refrain, "How can we expect to solve--, when the field can't even agree on a definition of giftedness!" Why do we assume that we must define something before we can begin to understand it? Is that assumption a holdover from the predominantly behaviorist orientation of the 1950s when everything had to be measurable? Haven't we gotten past the paradigm of defining, measuring, then studying phenomena? If physicists had to agree on a definition of the nature of the universe before they could study it, we would still be working on pre-atomic theory.

There is also the possibility that we can only define something after we understand it sufficiently. If so, then the definition would come after intensive study rather than before it. Even then, would we be content to stay with the resultant definition for all time?

Perhaps expectations of a complete and universally agreeable definition are too reductionist in nature. A single definition would defy the principles of the cultural and temporal relativity of the concept of giftedness. A story from our nation's early history clearly illustrates this cultural relativity.

In 1794 Ben Franklin published a pamphlet in which he told the story of an offer by the government of Virginia to educate six sons of the Six Nations of Indians at the college in Williamsburg. The Indians' spokesman thanked the Virginians for the kind offer, but reminded them that "different nations have different conceptions of things" and that the Chiefs' ideas of education were not the same as those of the Virginians (Franklin, 1794, cited in Burdin, 1978, p. 33). The spokesman went on to say that several of their young people had attended the colleges and were instructed in all sciences of the white men, however, when they returned to their people, they were unable to do the things that the Indians considered most important: run quickly, live in the woods, bear cold and hunger, build a cabin, hunt, fight the enemy, or speak as counselors. Therefore, the young people were not suited for life with their own people. Yet, the chiefs recognized the generosity in the offer from the Virginians, so they, in turn, offered, "if the gentlemen of Virginia will send us a dozen of their sons, we will take care of their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them" (p. 33).

Although the cultural differences in our country may not be quite as extreme as they once were, important differences still exist. Even larger differences pertain when comparing values in cultures around the world. Could a single definition be written that would encompass all of the differences that are important, yet be specific enough to be useful?

Even if one could be, how long would it be relevant? Temporal relativity can be illustrated with an example from the study of intelligence. Intelligence, which was once thought to be a unitary, inherited ability, is now widely considered to be multidimensional and dynamic. However, the psychologists such as Gardner and Sternberg who study this construct do not agree on a definition or measurement. Nor did their predecessors, such as Cattell, Thorndike, and Spearman, agree, and we don't have reason to believe that there will be full agreement in the foreseeable future. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't study intelligence or trust in the construct. In fact, Gardner continues to revise his list of intelligences as he finds additional abilities to add. That is because he is unsatisfied, even with his own conceptualization.

It is this dissatisfaction with knowledge that leads to further research. Or, to put it in the reverse way, to agree to a definition that we assume to be true is to stop searching for truth. It is the belief in the transitory nature of knowledge that we hope to convey to our most gifted students so that they can continue to search for better explanations, solutions, and meanings. Would we expect to do less with the concept of giftedness?

We certainly can't agree on a definition of creativity or how to measure it. We can't even agree that it can be measured. Even talent defies agreement in definition and measurement. The Olympic judging, which is supposed to be conducted by qualified experts of specific talents from around the world, is fraught with disagreements and errors.

If we can't agree on the definitions of intelligence, creativity, and talent--which are components of giftedness--how can we expect to agree on a definition of giftedness itself? No, I say the expectation of such agreement on a definition is unrealistic.

I further argue that such agreement is unnecessary. Why should giftedness be defined the same way in China and Beirut? The music, food, art, alphabet, predominant religion, and other cultural aspects are very different. Though not as extreme, the differences between school districts in different states or regions are enough to warrant relative differences in definitions of giftedness. This is true whether we are referring to theoretical or operational definitions because such definitions should reflect the service that the school system will provide for the identified students. So, for example, if one state opts to include talent in the arts as part of its definition of giftedness because it can offer special arts classes or a school for the arts, so be it. Another state may find that serving the academically gifted is challenging enough of its resources, and thus opts to define gifted more narrowly. Until and unless the federal government rescinds the rights of states to make such educational decisions, it is unlikely and unnecessary to agree to a single definition. The same is true within some states where individual districts can define giftedness.

Even within a state where there is an agreed theoretical definition, the operational definitions by which students are identified for a gifted program are likely to vary. For example, the state of Georgia has a statewide theoretical definition, which defines a gifted student as:

   a student who demonstrates a
   high degree of intellectual
   and/or creative ability(ies),
   exhibits an exceptionally high
   degree of motivation, and/or
   excels in specific academic
   fields, and who needs special
   instruction and/or special ancillary
   services to achieve at levels
   commensurate with his or her
   abilities. (State Board of Education
   Rule 160-4-2-.38, p. 1)

One might think that the existence of a state rule ensures that there is uniformity in the identification of students for the gifted program. However, Georgia has two options for identifying students: 1) the psychometric approach, by which a student may be identified on the basis of mental ability and achievement test results; or 2) the multiple criteria approach, by which a student must meet three of the four criteria for eligibility in the areas of mental ability, achievement, creativity, and motivation. Within the first option, there are several tests that can be used, and even component scores can be used in the area of mental ability. Within the second major option, there are several ways that students can qualify, including tests, checklists, products, performances, and grades. Thus, even in a state with a uniform definition, there are many possible operational definitions that obtain. I argue that this is a strength rather than a weakness. The increasingly diverse student body in the state can be assessed according to the methods deemed most suitable by the local school system.

To this point I have argued the improbability of writing a single definition of gifted that would be meaningful, acceptable, and relevant for some time. Now I would like to question why we would want one definition. In other words, why are we so uncomfortable with diverse definitions?

It seems that all complex fields have dialectical or, at least, dialogical arguments that move the field forward. The argument over teaching reading by phonics versus whole language a few years ago energized the study of reading as people sided with either the "Wholey Language" forces or "The Phonicators." Physics has moved forward by the challenge of succeeding paradigms of a mechanistic universe, relativistic universe, and a quantum universe, followed by a theory of chaos. If a single belief system had been desirable, wouldn't it have been preferable to stay with one theory rather than challenge the status quo?

Can't we have a single definition and have dialogue about other issues, such as grouping? Of course, but the concept of giftedness is the basis of all assessment, curricular, and administrative decisions that we make about gifted individuals. Our conceptualization of who is gifted and how much trust we have in this conceptualization determines how we view such controversial issues as grouping. Those who argue most strongly against any special provisions for gifted students typically argue that children identified as gifted do not really need special provisions (questioning the theoretical definition); or, that the identification measures leave out many gifted children (showing lack of trust in the operational definition).

Would a single definition result in positive progress in the field? We have had a federal definition since the 1972 Marland Report, yet this has not engendered the unanimous agreement that those who espouse a single definition would predict (although it should be noted that even this definition has gone through several iterations to reach its present form). In other words, if everyone truly accepted the current federal definition (U.S. Department of Education, 1993) that includes the following line, then everywhere in this nation we might expect to see students identified and served in all of the areas listed:

   These children and youth
   exhibit high performance capability
   in intellectual, creative,
   and/or artistic areas, possess an
   unusual leadership capacity, or
   excel in specific academic
   fields.

If everyone truly believed the following line, then special services for gifted students would be understood as necessary:

   They require services or
   activities not ordinarily provided
   by the schools.

And, if everyone accepted the following lines as true, then there would be better efforts to identify students from all groups:

   Outstanding talents are present
   in children and youth from
   all cultural groups, across the
   economic strata, and in all areas
   of human endeavor.

The fact that we have been able to establish a definition of giftedness composed by some of the best minds working in the field at the time, and yet it has not had the power to be as influential as we might expect does not bode well for the idea of composing a universal definition in the future. The fact that even the federal definition has gone through at least three iterations in 30 years indicates that defining giftedness will probably continue to be a dynamic process.

I think that the variety of definitions of giftedness that exists is necessary, to be expected, and beneficial. Although all definitions are not created equal, the proliferation of definitions allows representation of various viewpoints, consideration of diverse abilities, and expansion in the field.

However, if the consensus is that there should be a single definition, then at least let us not rush to a conclusion on the issue. Let's delay the Hegelian search for the coherent synthesis for several more lifetimes as we enjoy the invigorating dialectic of the debate on what is giftedness. After all, creatively gifted individuals are supposed to prefer complexity, tolerate ambiguity, and resist premature closure (cf. Davis, 2003, pp. 312-313). I believe I feel a new definition of giftedness coming on ... or two ...

REFERENCES

Burdin, J. L. (197g). Factors promoting and constraining inservice education. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 31-33.

Davis, G. A. (2003). Identifying creative students, teaching for creative growth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 311-324). Boston: Allyn & Bacon,

Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

State Board of Education (SBOE) 160-4-2-.38 Education Program for Gifted Students [Code IDDD(2)] p. 1. Retrieved August 24, 2004 from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/curriculum/ instruction/gifted.asp#how.

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington. DC: Author.

Bonnie Cramond is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia, She is the director of the Torrance Center for Creative Studies, the editor of the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, and a member of the board of directors of the National Association for Gifted Children.