Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross

In this response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross's (2010) thoughtprovoking article on the nature and state of the field of gifted education, the author first discusses the role of disciplinary knowledge in his field. He argues that gifted education, as a normative and practical endeavor (i.e., a profession), is different from academic disciplines in research agendas and that technical rationality is not sufficient for identifying its "best practice." The author then suggests a "flat" structure to facilitate close collaboration between theorists, researchers, and practitioners in tackling pressing problems and fashioning innovative practices. To facilitate discussion of explorations in our practice, he delineates three basic service models or paradigms in gifted education as follows: the gifted child paradigm, the talent development paradigm, and the differentiation paradigm. He proposes five criteria for assessing their strengths and potential weaknesses. Finally, he suggests that the best way of providing evidence-based best practice is through use-inspired, design studies, which not only address the question of whether a practical model works but also specify goals, assumptions, resources, processes, and constraints involved so that "how it works" is made transparent.