Flashes of insight from within and beyond our field.

This special issue is an attempt to shed a broad light on an inquiry path through the field of gifted education. In a discussion of inquiry processes from the philosophy of science, Bohm (1999) employed enlightening metaphors to reveal the conceptual confinement that plagues investigation in the natural sciences:

   Generally speaking, science develops by a series of
   small steps of understanding that may be compared to
   the lighting of candles, each of which illuminates
   some small domain in the surrounding darkness for a
   short period of time (until it burns out). Every now
   and then there is a flash of understanding, which, like
   lightning, illuminates a whole field of study, and so
   brings about a fundamental change in our basic conceptions
   in that field. (p. 222)

If Bohm' s metaphors apply to the field of gifted education as well, broad contextual analyses such as the one attempted here could promote the flash that illuminates a broad swath of conceptual terrain: a flash that could redirect theory and practice in our field for some time to come. This flash may or may not be evident in the articles comprising this issue; however, it is possible that the broader contextual awareness provided within could generate broader vision in a few readers whose work ultimately could nudge the field toward new directions in the future.

This special issue represents the second stage of a large-scale project aimed at clarification and expansion of the conceptual foundations for gifted education. The first issue, Roeper Review 27(3), invited readers to explore dimensions of the field from various levels of disciplinary analysis and from broad philosophical perspectives. It also included new conceptions of creativity and linguistic development as well as insights borrowed from cognitive psychology and depth psychology.

This second issue extends the project of contextual exploration even further. It represents a concerted attempt to elevate the vision of thinkers in the field above the immediate and particular to perceive the broader conceptual terrain illuminated by Bohm's occasional lightning strikes. The issue begins with three articles that delve deeply into the nature of socioeconomic, political, and cultural contexts that confine, encourage, and strongly shape the development of high ability.

First, in the article "Aspiration Growth, Talent Development, and Self-Fulfillment in a Context of Democratic Erosion," I present a model showing the dynamics of democratic growth and erosion in today's complex, globalized world. Based on a synthesis of literature from political theory, economics, and sociology, the model reveals the shades of gray between the ideal of liberal democracy and the depths of totalitarianism as well as the effects various ideological contexts can have on the aspiration growth and talent development of bright young people.

Continuing the sociopolitical analysis with the article "Social Dominance, Moral Politics, and Gifted Education," Jennifer Riedl Cross and Tracy Cross employ constructs from Social Dominance Theory (SDT) and Lakoff's linguistic analyses of the cognitive, metaphorical bases for conservatism and liberalism in our sociopolitical contexts to develop insights about the nature of school environments as contexts for the development of gifted children. Adults influenced by the strict father metaphor of conservatism tend to favor competitive school environments while those influenced by the liberal nurturing family metaphor favor more supportive, inclusive educational processes. In essence, the analysis reveals the extent to which sociopolitical ideology and implicit metaphorical frameworks influence the child's educational experience.

In yet another exploration of societal context, H. Richard Milner and Donna Ford reveal the nuances of racial assumptions in our sociocultural surroundings and how the influences of race shape the lived experiences of gifted people. Counter to assumptions that racial issues have been largely resolved, they make the case that facial influences are strong and persistent in the curriculum. They include concrete advice for educators, which entails advocacy for strong reflection on our own facial experiences and in-depth analyses of our work with curriculum development and implementation.

All of these conceptions of complex, nettlesome contextual pressures on the gifted and talented illuminate the need for strong leadership within and beyond our field. Fortunately, Robert Sternberg elaborates on his recent conceptions of leadership in the article "WICS: A Model of Giftedness in Leadership." Making the case that proficiency in a domain does not guarantee leadership ability, he shows how gifted leaders manifest an artful combination of creativity, intelligence, and wisdom. Effective leaders generate creative ideas, intelligently critique and implement these ideas, and wisely manage the effects of the implementation on various stakeholders. Sternberg also juxtaposes his model with other relevant constructs in the field.

Reva Friedman-Nimz, Brenna O'Brien, and Bruce Frey conclude the issue with an insightful empirical analysis of conceptual shifts in gifted education as they are revealed by changing terminology in the professional literature. Their article "Examining Our Foundations: Implications for Gifted Education Research," represents a thorough analysis of a massive body of literature, which shows stronger emphases on creativity, more interest in articles about practice, and some growth in qualitative investigative methodology. They also point out that the paradigm shift frequently mentioned in the literature is not that evident in practice.

Collectively, the articles in this special issue encourage us to lift our vision above the daily concerns of our work to perceive the broader contextual influences on the development of high ability. They also invite us to perceive larger, evolving conceptual patterns within and beyond our field.

REFERENCE

Bohm, D. (1999). On the problem of truth and understanding in science. In M. Bunge (Ed.), Critical approaches to science and philosophy (pp. 212-223). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

--Don Ambrose, Guest Editor