Description: This case study investigates how expertise is constituted in contemporary societies where science, institutions, and professions do no longer guarantee the authority of knowing. The study is informed by the concept of "open-context expertise" (Eräsaari 2002; 2003), which challenges scientific rationality as the basis of expertise. Open-context expertise does not have a fixed body of knowledge, but defines meaning case by case in specific circumstances according to particular perspectives. Such expertise is a dynamic, socially constructed, and power-laden phenomenon (Isopahkala-Bouret, 2005). Then, how can one claim having expertise in these conditions? How is "ownership" of expert knowledge narrated? Methodology: This study is based on interviews of experienced technology professionals who have seen, during the last ten fifteen years, how expertise has transformed and expanded its traditional boundaries. The data is interpreted via a narrative approach. The narrative case analysis synthesizes and configures elements of interview accounts into an emplotted story that unites and gives meaning to the data according to a certain point (Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 15). The purpose is to see how people in the flow of discourse impose order for their experiences and make sense of events and actions in their lives (Riessman, 1993, p. 2). Furthermore, organizational and professional culture "speaks itself" through individual stories (p. 5), So, the interpretation goes beyond the personal narrations and attempts to understand how theoretical construction of "open-context expertise" works in participants' stories. Conclusions: The findings of the study reveal what is expert knowledge in current circumstances and how one can narrate "ownership" of such knowledge. These findings show that there is no guarantee that scientific knowledge, institutional status, or professional diploma makes one considered having expertise in specific work settings. It all depends how the context of expertise is communicatively defined. As a conclusion, this study makes us reconsider the relationship between education and expertise. The way expert knowledge is narrated in this study questions the role of vocational and higher education institutions in qualifying expertise. It is not clear what role the education (e.g., the level of degree and the college major) plays in the positioning of experts in openly defined contexts. Furthermore, similar educational background - combined with different age, gender, race and nationality - can provide unequal "ownership" of knowledge. Therefore, the importance of education has not necessarily diminished, but the relation of education and expertise has become more complex.