While a professor of literature is likely to be assigned the title of “Doctor” when engaged with students (and perhaps colleagues) on the college or university campus, they usually are called by their first or last name when engaged in the non-academic world. This professor will often put the initials of his doctorate (usually Ph.D.) on essays that they have published, but they rarely place these initials in their non-academic communications.
Conversely, scientists will often be called “Doctors” even when off campus –and certainly in news reports regarding their work. Jim Smith or Susan Darcy didn’t discover the new atomic particle.” Rather, “Dr. James Smith” or “Dr. Susan Darcy” made this major discovery. As in the case of medical practitioners, we seem to treat scientists as something greater than regular human beings. We call them “Doctors” and place them on pedestals. Those who publish books about leaders, world wars or art are admired but left on the ground and called by their first and last names: “this wonderful new book on James Madison was written by Susan Kaufman.”
A Third Culture: Helping Professions
Then there is the matter of those with doctorates in human services rather than science or the humanities. Snow did not directly tackle this Third culture. It seems to reside somewhere between the culture of science and the culture of humanities. Some people inside a helping service profession consider themselves to be scientists—or at least they profess to be “scientific” in their approach to work with other people – and readily dismiss those who consider their work to be an “art” rather than “science.” Conversely, there are those social workers, public policy planners, educators—and psychologists—who believe that they are doing something that is “artful” and scientifically elusive. For them, working with a client is more like a dance than the repair of a broken axle.
Where do the human service professions stand regarding social status and societal influence in most societies? Just as human services seem to reside between the sciences and humanities, so in most societies, their social status and influence reside below the sciences (and medical services) and above the humanities (and such humanistic services as education and public policy professionals).
It should be noted that the human services generally have their own hierarchy. This hierarchy tends to parallel (and is even driven or dictated by) that which is found in the medical profession. The pecking order in the helping (human service) professions: (1) medical, (2) psychology, (3) social work, (4) public policy analysts, (5) education. This hierarchy is based on the level of the highest degree achieved as well as the public’s assessment of the extent to which people working in a specific human service field “actually” provide tangible, immediate assistance to those who are “wounded,” “ill” or in need of some other service. Immediate impact is prized, whereas longer-term and less tangible impact (such as formulation of public health policy) is set much lower on the list.
Interestingly, this hierarchy is NOT based on one’s position in an organization or one’s years of experience in a specific field. While those in the C-Suite and those with many years of experience in an organization might be shown some respect in many countries, this is not the case uniquely in many human services. There is also the matter of generational differences. The younger generation today in many countries do not fully acknowledge or abide by this traditional hierarchy. Physicians are not “all-knowing,” and the public health advocate can have their day in court (such as during the COVID crisis).
As we have just noted, the role of educators (tragically) is often placed at the bottom of the human service hierarchy. Alongside this dismissal of education as critical is the assignment of bottom status to the doctoral degree awarded for education (Ed.D.). We know of many highly gifted educators who have faced discriminatory hiring in the academy precisely because they received an Ed.D. degree rather than a PhD. They are not hired as president of a college or university because of their education degree (which is more relevant for institutional leadership in many cases than a degree in some field of science or the humanities). Potential faculty members are not hired because of their Ed.D. degree, even though they will primarily be teaching (and can apply what they have learned about education in the classroom setting).
