ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the own research but highlighting findings from others' research and reviews empirical tests of the deliberate practice view. It discusses Ericsson's response to these challenges, focusing on discrepancies between claims and empirical evidence, and inconsistent definitions of theoretical terms. The chapter discusses how these discrepancies and inconsistencies limit progress in scientific research on expertise. The deliberate practice view has had tremendous impact on both scientific and popular views on expertise. Cited more than 6,600 times since its publication, the Ericsson et al. article is one of the most referenced articles in the psychological literature. However, Ericsson and colleagues have multiple definitions of "deliberate practice" that sometimes contradict one another. Most importantly, the central claim that individual differences in expertise can largely be accounted for by deliberate practice is not supported by the available evidence. Under some definitions of deliberate practice, there is little to no evidence to support this claim.
