This conversation was prompted by a blog entry posted by Tim Dracup in January 2012. The subsequent e-exchange between Tim and Barry Hymer explored a number of issues central to the nature and aetiology of giftedness, confronting these issues from contrasting ontological and epistemological stances. As a result, their conversation includes arguments over the value of social constructivism and the nature of ‘empirical evidence’, equity and incidence, and related socio-political factors. Areas of agreement and continuing disagreement are provided. The subsequent exchange has been lightly edited and abridged for the purposes of this journal. Barry’s contributions are italicised.
BiestaG (2007) Why ‘what works’ won’t work: evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in education. Educational Theory57(1): 1–22.
2.
BorlandJH (ed.) (2003) Rethinking Gifted Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
3.
Department for Education (2011) The Framework for the National Curriculum. A report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum Review. London: Department for Education.
4.
DweckCS (2000) Self Theories – Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Hove: Psychology Press.
5.
DweckCS (2006) Mindset – The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.
6.
GaltonF (1869) Hereditary Genius – An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences. London: Macmillan.
7.
HymerBJ (2007) How do I understand and communicate my values and beliefs in my work as an educator in the field of giftedness?Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University.
HymerBJ (2011) From cohorts to capabilities: connecting the ‘G&T’ agenda in schools to an influential theory of economic development. G&T Update90: 8–9.
10.
ShenkD (2010) The Genius in All of Us. London: Icon Books.
11.
TurkheimerEHaleyAWaldronMD’OnofrioBGottesmanI (2003) Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science14(6): 623–628.
12.
VygotskyLS (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
