Hi Robert:

     Firstly, I don't call myself a Foreign Expert, the Government of the Peoples Republic of China calls me a Foreign Expert. I have never in my entire life referred to myself as a Foreign Expert or even an Expert. That would be like referring to myself as Mr. Jenkins. Doing something like that where I come from would get me laughed out of the pool hall, or worse. When I posted my self-introduction in one of the forums (I just checked and discovered that it is not this forum, but I can't remember which one it was), it asked for some personal information and the context in which I work.  The context in which I work is as a Foreign Expert.  The term Foreign Expert is a designation used by the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs, People's Republic of China.  Another designation is "Foreign Teacher."  The designation of "Foreign Expert" requires a higher level of expertise than that of "Foreign Teacher." My Foreign Experts Certificate classifies me under the title: "Foreign Experts Working in the Fields of Culture and Education."  Culture and education is not the only Foreign Expert  field. So, since these forums want to know my working context, I decided to state the context with each post. My personal opinion is that with that bit of information and 100 RMB, I can buy a cup of tea anywhere in Beijing (Note that I place my working context in parentheses, which is an indication of the small importance that I attach to it, and that I don't state my degrees).

     Secondly, regarding what I am "a 'foreign exgert' of," I am a "Foreign Expert Working in the Fields of Culture and Education." That probably doesn't provide you with the information you want. So, some additional information is:

1.  I have a background in nuclear engineering with specialties in nuclear chemistry, pure water chemistry, steam generator chemistry, radiation health physics, quality assurance programs, quality control programs, and preventive maintance programs. I have made contributions in each of these subfields.  These descriptions are intentionally vague because the specifics are classifed.  When I was actively working in these fields, I was considered by my collegues to be an expert and I considered my collegues to be experts as well, but that term was never used as a title or otherwise.  Usually, I was addressed as "Hey, you! What are you up to now!?"

2.  Excluding the educational background and training related to No. 1 above, which is classified, I have a BA TESL, BA Chinese, BA Asian Studies with a concentration on China, and an MA in Second Language Studies with dual concentrations in Second Language Acquisition and Pedagogy (i.e., theory construction and application). I specialize in teaching American English to native speakers of Mandarin with an emphasis on pronunciation and listening (grammar is pretty much a done deal, but I find the problems in the areas of pronunciation and listening to be interesting).  I have been told that those familiar with my research refer to me as an expert in the fields of adult acquisition of L2 pronunciation (my research was the first to demonstrate that an adult learner is able to acquire the pronunciation of the segmentals of an L2 to the level of accuracy of a native speaker as a result of instruction) and in listening comprehension (I identified the reason why adult L2 learners listen "too slow" and developed a solution to the problem).  I think they do it just to make me feel uncomfortable. My attitude regarding titles is like that of a good friend of mine who has a PhD in History: he refers to himself as a teacher. Likewise, when someone asks me what I do to pay the bills, I answer, "teach English as a foreign langauge."

     So, in summary it is my understanding that this forum prefers participants to state their working context and the context in which I work is as a Foreign Expert in the English Department of the China University of Mining and Technology in Beijing, China.

     I would suggest, if I may,  that you do what others do in a forum such as this: focus on people's ideas and not their educational backgrounds or titles.  I am willing to learn from a 1-year-old if the rug rat has something to teach me. As a female aquaintance of mine once said, she liked internet chat rooms because people had no choice but to judge her based on what she had to say rather than on her physical appearance and choice of attire.

     Finally, I did take note of the fact that your orientation is qualitative in nature.  Mine is quantitative.  So, although I agree with most of what you have said in various forums, and I am glad you said it because it saved me a whole lot of key strokes, I have not engaged you in conversation on the topics that we disagree on (and there would be no point in talking to you about what we do agree on).   I have no interest in engaging you in a discussion involving topics on which we would natural disagree because of our different philosophical positions. Philosophical debates don't resolve anthing, they just generate more philosophy. We would accomplish nothing more than identifying the unproven and unprovable assumptions that we each rely on. Nonetheless, I am fairly sure that I will continue to enjoy your postings.

     I hope this answers your questions.

Dan Jenkins (Foreign Expert, English Department, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China)