Let me get this straight - Dr title.
I really have a problem with some of the replies here, which are speaking from a non-academia environment, or, I believe, speaking from outside the UK.
In the UK the Dr title is *not* redundant in an academic environment. Though when it is used it should be Dr John Smith, not Dr John Smith PhD. So if you are working as an academic of course it can be on your business cards.
I do not use my title outside academia, but I do have it on my bank card. The reason is that it gives me extra ID with my doctorness on it, which can be useful. But I never speak to any banking person who would see it, so it never comes up in that kind of conversation. Nor does it come up in any shop setting, because I'm the one bunging the card in the Chip and PIN unit.
I am a non-affiliated academic, due to severely disabling progressive neurological disease. But I have an honorary research fellowship (ongoing, probably for life), and am pursuing an academic path as much as I can, as an independent academic historian, publishing academic journal papers, speaking at academic conferences, and taking part in my university department's research community. In no way in any of these settings is my 'Dr' redundant.
I think the situation is very different for anyone working outside academia, and it can be different in other countries. But do not make broad claims for its misuse in academia in the UK.
I wasn't making broad claims about it's use or misuse Bilbo. I actually commented that having a PhD still helped in upward progression in academia.
However, there are some instances I've encountered where not having a PhD has not prevented someone reaching the top or at least a high level in an academic organisation. For example, a few of the Deans of Faculty at my old place do not have PhDs. It's an advantage, but no longer essential.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
I think the whole area can be really confusing e.g. in the UK 'MD' is a PhD-type qualification for medical doctors, and surgeons are called Mr, even though they are medical doctors. Misunderstanding is almost inevitable.
The use of 'Mr.' in the UK by surgeons is a nod to the old Barber Surgeons that operated in and before the mid-19th Century. In most other countries, they'd be referred to as 'Dr.'.
As I said, use the appropiate suffix to avoid confusion.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Hi , the title 'doctor' is used both in and outside of industry and academia within Australia-and is a commonplace in Education, especially for those of us who seek or have obtained senior positions within schools, systems & sectors, government agencies and other related fields.
Within Australia the title 'Dr' for an MD or medical doctor is also used for general practitioners and 'Mr' or 'Mrs' for surgeons and other specialists. Most people seem to understand this.
Within my own university, academics who do not have an Associate Professorship or 'Professor' title are listed as Dr Jane Books-with all relevant qualifications listed in a separate line underneath the title. However, if they were to be published in a journal, they would simply be 'Jane Books' in their bio (with qualifications mentioned in their bio later). When anyone contacts them by email, the ettiquette for first time email (from student to academic) would be to use their title. In sending emails and making phone calls thereafter, one would use their first name.
In schools and colleges, certainly in my own college-which is a private school- qualifications of all educational staff are published annually in a Magazine or similar and all of your qualifications (and any associated titles) are expected to be listed. I would imagiine that other industries and sectors would have similar practices. We do not study the PhD or a professional doctorate for the title, certainly, but the title does confer that a certain level of expertise and study has been undertaken and, in my experience, most people don't find this too difficult to understand.
In private life, people may make different choices depending on their own personal preferences (which are theirs to make). Personally speaking, I will use my qualifications and title professionally (once I have them), as my employer will wish me to do this, and I will have spent much time and hard work in earning that qualification and professional status, but in personal life and when flying-probably not. But that's my choice.
I assume the professional use of the Dr title also depends heavily on the field in question.
Coming from a science perspective (biological/environmental), it seems that large numbers of people in industry, consulting, sales and the public sector have phds, and it is common to see Dr used in email signatures from people in these jobs. And certainly you would not get any kind of academic position in my field without a phd, or at least I have never heard of this happening.
Maybe in some "scientific" industries a phd is seen as a kind of professional qualification, and a lot more people have one? So definitely not redundant, or a dirty secret!
This risks going a little off topic, but here goes. :-)
I guess 'dirty secret' may depend upon people's personal circumstances and the job you're aiming to do once you're finished. In my case, I had a very bad second post-doc (discussed here before - offered me a job then changed mind when it was too late to say they didn't want me, leaving me stuck in a department where I was clearly not welcome) and although I saw it through to the end, I did not leave on the best of terms with the senior academic in charge of me.
Finding a job after that was a painfully slow process (both academic and non-academic jobs) and I was simply glad to find myself in any job at all. So in my case, 'dirty secret' whilst not totally accurate is not too far off the mark. The second post-doc basically ended my time in academia (family health issues played a part), despite a previous good record inside and outside the University sector.
If a person is employed to a research postion directly because of their PhD skills or project, then the PhD most will definitely not be a 'dirty secret'. No two people will follow the same path through life, thus different people will have different perceptions based on their experiences.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Yes I agree of course that for some jobs holding a PhD could be something of a hindrance. I guess my point was that there seems to be a range of non-research "science-y" jobs for which a PhD is not required, but nonetheless it is not uncommon for people in those jobs to hold PhDs. So my theory was that in some disciplines holding a PhD may be more common, or more widely accepted/understood.
Point taken and I agree. Pharmacy seems to be a good example of that and in industrial terms, a PhD is less of a hinderance and probably more of an advantage.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
