I believe that the anthropologist Richard Leakey, who is currently a Professor at SUNY Stonybrook, had no formal college education http://www.roycecarlton.com/speaker/Richard-Leakey-Curriculum-Vitae/ although he's received many honorary doctorates. I don't think anyone would question his bona fides, just as I am sure most of us envy his education. Also, when I studied history at Columbia back in the 1970s, I was a little surprised to learn that one of my professors, Alan Cameron, did not have a PhD either. Cameron is currently Charles Anthon Professor of the Latin Language and Literature at Columbia University. Generally a PhD reflects a certain degree of expertise -- although, like friends on FB, we should probably be careful not to read too much into that -- but mostly it reflects a commitment to the academic system and its processes. Where this gets muddier it seems to me is in areas such as emerging technologies, where an 18 year old dropout might have a greater grasp of a subject that a 60 year old tenured faculty member. Professionalization seems to be weakening across disciplines, and trying to emerge is a more dynamic, more disperse, more ambient reputation system. We aren't surprised any more to find out the "person" we're talking with on the Internet is a dog, but we are still shocked when the dog turns out to be smarter than we are. -c On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Sam Ladner <samladner@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course this begs the question: what is the <redacted> text? I must know! Your inquiry I think is one of professionalization. Academics in general haven't been as successful at that process than, say, physicians (any of you been called "not a 'real' doctor'"? Extra points if it was by family member!). Physicians monopolized a set of knowledge and successfully organized the socio-legal framework to their benefit. They have placed other professionals below them in a hierarchy (nurses, physiotherapists, etc.) and locked down that social convention by having exclusive legal control over prescriptions. Anthropologists have failed to do the same (as have sociologists, FWIW). The only occupational control anthropologists have had thus far is guarding entry into the academy as a professor. You can call yourself an anthropologist as much as you want, but you just can't teach other anthropologists. Heck, I've met several "economists" who "only" have an MA. Now that said, I happen to think the PhD matters (under 25? irrelevant). It suggests a certain level of expertise, and of course the ability to teach that expertise. But it makes me uncomfortable to relegate someone to "non anthropologist" when there is no legal provision to certify that professional status, as there are with engineers, physicians, and accountants. ~~~~~ Sam Ladner, PhD Sociologist Toronto On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:21 PM, live <human.factor.one@gmail.com> wrote:
I actually have an inquiry that is related, and I'm highly curious what the list response is:
I've someone I know who is calling themselves a '<redacted term> anthropologist'. As such, they have been invited to speak and have been presenting at various conferences. They do not have a PhD and they're under the age of 25, having just graduated from college.
Is this ethical? Can a term 'psychologist' or anthropologist' be used by someone not having attended graduate education? What say this list?
On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Chris Hodge wrote:
I can understand people misrepresenting the nature of their personal contacts for self-aggrandizement (FB body counts), and I can understand people misrepresenting associations and affiliations for professional gain (fictitious advisory boards). As sins go, I guess I'm not sure this is much worse than resume-padding.
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--