Is consensus on a definition in the field possible, desirable, necessary?

My intention as I began this essay was to argue that a consensus definition is the best we can do and other definitions are largely tangential to the practice of gifted education. As I proceeded, I found my position moving in a different direction. My essay lays the argument with minimal formality.

Is a Definition Necessary?

The necessity for a definition is non-debatable. A field cannot have any coherence without common understanding about the limits of the phenomenon. Fields of knowledge have boundaries; only divinity is boundless. The identity of fields is established by custom, convention and formal organizations. No one argues today that a field such as gifted and talented education is not socially constructed. However, recognition of that fact in no way reduces the controversy over the meaning and measurement of key terms (Coleman, Sanders, & Cross, 1997). Acceptance of the need for a definition does not delineate the attributes of a proper definition. Should the definition be inclusive, consensual, specific, abstract or concrete? Should it be useful for research, practice or both? How these questions are answered produce the definition of a field.

A Consensus Exists

We do have a consensus definition. It is Marland's definition and the many variants of it that have appeared since its 1972 publication. The definition has been found to be useful and possible, although small changes have occurred. The fact that Marland's definition has remained for 30 years says something about that particular definition as well as the process of consensus building. Consensus is derived from the competition among viewpoints, the politics of the relevant disciplines, and of the context of the larger society. The Marland definition was a compromise between competing conceptions of the nature of giftedness, battles between psychology, biology, and education for their perspectives within the American context of anti-intellectualism, institutional racism and democratic idealism.

The big ideas that were part of the 1970s' discussion defining giftedness were the constructs of intelligence, creativity, achievement, and domain/field specificity. Three significant themes woven into the dialogue were recognition of cultural and socioeconomic variations, assertions about whether giftedness was normally distributed, and the role of development and learning in giftedness. Buried further under these two layers were historical disputes between disciplines such as psychology and education about whose interests should be served by a definition. The political nature of the process was heightened when the U.S. Commissioner of Education on behalf of the Congress produced the definition (Marland, 1972). It read:

      Gifted and talented children
   are those identified by professionally
   qualified persons
   who, by virtue of outstanding
   abilities, are capable of high
   performance. These are children
   who require differentiated
   educational programs and/or
   services beyond those normally
   provided by the regular school
   program in order to realize their
   contribution to self and society.

      Children capable of high
   performance include those with
   demonstrated achievement
   and/or potential ability in any
   of the following areas, singly or
   in combination:

      1. general intellectual ability

      2. specific academic aptitude

      3. creative or productive thinking

      4. leadership ability

      5. visual and performing arts

      6. psychomotor ability.

   It can be assumed that utilization
   of these criteria for identification
   of the gifted and
   talented will encompass a minimum
   of 3 to 5 percent of the
   school population. (p. 2)

The result was a broad, inclusive Christmas-tree definition that met some demands of the parties and was politically feasible. The advocates for intelligence, creativity, achievement, social-cultural related giftedness, psychology, and education got a present. Unfortunately, the bequest left them dissatisfied. Rather than solving the basic issues, the Marland definition smoothed them over, allowing them to simmer and provided no means for interpreting the new ingredients (information and theory) on development and giftedness. The Marland definition mixes abilities, talents, and domains into one stew. A subsequent publication by Sternberg and Davidson (1986) contained a variety of conceptions of a definition.

A consensus definition exists, but few are satisfied. Competing definitions float in current texts that either diverge or accept the Marland definition. Two definitions that have broad influence in the field are those of Joseph Renzulli (1986) and of Julian Stanley (Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974). Their definitions illustrate a split in the field between the process/creative product orientations and academic content orientations, respectively. Their points of reference convey a subtle difference in the relationship of education to giftedness. Renzulli's definition points toward reforming the general school and implies a relative impermanence to giftedness. Stanley's definition moves toward fostering learning of advanced and challenging content and implies a stable notion of giftedness. These definitions demonstrate the challenge that more narrowly focused definitions make to the Marland consensus definition. I infer from these two definitions and other proposals that the field is searching for a more specific definition.

Specificity Is Desirable

Separating the many variations of giftedness (i.e., creative, intellectual, etc.) within the broad consensus definition or specifying levels of giftedness (i.e., gifted, profoundly gifted) could improve dialogue, research, and intervention. Certainly, removing some of the fuzziness in meanings is likely to increase the chance that scholars and practitioners would be talking about the same phenomenon. Narrower definitions encouraging more compact classifications of giftedness would clarify distinctions among the gifted group and between gifted and nongifted persons. The definitions would be the basis for partitioning the gifted into smaller groups in order to study basic psychological processes by making developmental and chronological comparisons. Furthermore, educational interventions such as methods, instructional systems or programs could be studied to ascertain whether they benefit specific forms of giftedness. Differentiation, the most current phrase, could then be tied to more specific, educationally relevant characteristics of the gifted than is presently the case. Last, more specific definitions might increase our legitimacy as a scientifically rigorous field, because increasingly finer discriminations are a sign in a Kuhnian sense of scientific maturity. In that sense the study of gifted children would be like other fields.

Specificity, which leads to deeper understanding of giftedness and improved forms of educational practice, would be welcomed by many researchers and practitioners. The tidiness of mutually exclusive categories will aid those searching for causal relationships as well as provide clarity for communication between practitioners and parents.

Specificity should be helpful, yet I doubt that we will learn much that is useful to fostering the learning and development of gifted children simply by becoming more specific. Understanding basic processes from carefully controlled studies can reveal significant differences, but those findings are likely to have limited practical significance when applied to the real world settings where giftedness actually develops. I fear the finer definitions will create more categories of giftedness that are practically irrelevant and educationally meaningless. If that is the case, then what have we gained? Learning more and more about less and less is not a productive strategy, except specificity might lead to full employment for policy makers, researchers and people who write articles like this.

Understanding giftedness and improving practices that foster the development of gifts and talents are the goals of gifted education. Can specialized definitions assist us in attaining them? Yes, I think narrowing the definition might be a step in the right direction. However, if we repeat the mistakes and unproductive directions of the past, than specificity is less attractive as an idea. Refining definitions based on aptitudes or processes are unlikely to be successful. Matching kinds of giftedness (aptitudes) with specific methods has not worked so far. Why should we expect it would work with a new list of aptitudes using more precise measures or attributes based on neurological and brain-based jargon? Efforts to sort out the meanings and the boundary of our field are useful, but I have serious doubts about narrowing the definition using our current ways of thinking.

Gagne's (1985, 1998) analysis of gifts and talents has nudged the field to an increased awareness. A more focused definition should take into account what we know about the development of talent and gifts. The literature indicates that talent emerges as a consequence of mysterious undetermined interplay among potential in a domain, specialized environments, and emergent volition.

I interpret the present state of our knowledge to mean we should adopt a domain-specific definition as the basis for defining the field, and that would be an improvement over the process and aptitude-based definitions. A domain is defined by persons who work in that area, by their recognition of others' work as belonging to that area, and by their capability to distinguish among varying levels of accomplishment. A domain has its own meanings or rules of operation that are shared by members.

The change to a domain-specific definition is significant because domains have direct meaning in terms of talent and education. Cross and I (Cross & Coleman, in press) have proposed that domains be conceived in two forms: foundational-type and performance-type. Domains such as math and reading are foundational-types in that they have their own structure and are tools that contribute to the learning of performance-type domains. Math, drawing and reading are foundational domains that are useful for persons learning performance domains such as architecture, law and philosophy. Matching domain-specific giftedness with programs attuned to that domain shows positive results and builds commitment to learning. The research from the Talent Searches is prime evidence on this point. Significantly, when persons with potential find themselves in specialized environments attuned to their domain, motivational changes as well as advanced learning occur.

Forming a New Consensus

The type of specific definition I am suggesting is not the last word in forming a new consensus definition. I anticipate some bristling over the definition I proposed. In fact, many more words would be required to create a new consensus definition. Being for a more specific definition is only a small step forward. How can the field produce a new common definition and/or classification system without an authoritative body? I propose an ad hoc committee be convened to work toward developing a new consensus definition. Preliminary steps might involve creating a partnership with members from the two professional organizations primarily concerned with giftedness and education, The Association for the Gifted and the National Association for Gifted Children, and a third professional organization concerned with psychology and giftedness, the American Psychological Association. This joint committee would plan for a conference for this purpose of creating a consensus definition.

REFERENCES

Coleman, L., Sanders, M., & Cross, T. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 44-50.

Cross, T. & Coleman, L. (in press.) School-based conceptions of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definition. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29,103-112.

Gagne, F. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within gifted and talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly. 42, 87-95,

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.

Renzulli, J. (1986). The Three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stanley, J., Keating, D., & Fox, L. (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sternberg, R., & Davidson, J. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Laurence J. Coleman, Ph.D. holds the Daso-Herb Chair in Gifted Studies at the University of Toledo. He presently serves as editor of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted.