Opinion
Recently I marked a doctoral thesis for a university in the UK. There was a web form to fill in, and I noted that like many internet pages of top universities, it was delightfully simple, even primitive. I just had to add my name and the name of the student, and then click complete. Except I also had to choose a title from a dropdown menu. It’s actually fun to read the full list, so I include it below.
Associate Lecturer, Associate Professor, Baron, Baroness, Brigadier, Captain, Chancellor, Colonel, Contessa, Count, Countess, Dame, Dean, Duke, Earl, Father, Flight Lieutenant, Frau, General, Honourable Dame, Judge, King, Lady, Lecturer, Lieutenant, Lieutenant Colonel, Lord, Lord Baron, Madam, Maharaja, Major, Marquess, Marquis, Master, Most Reverend, Mother, Pro Vice Chancellor, Prince, Princess, Principal, Professor, Provost, Reader, Rear Admiral, Rector, Reverend, Reverend Canon, Reverend Dr, Reverend Father, Reverend Honourable, Reverend Sir Baronet, Right Honourable Lord, Royal Highness, Second Lieutenant, Sheik, Sir, Sir Baronet, Sister, The Honourable, Venerable, Very Reverend, Very Reverend Dr, Vice Chancellor, Viscount, Viscountess, and Wing Commander.
The first thing that struck me was, of course, how many titles they accommodated. I was particularly surprised by titles like Honourable Dame and Reverend Honourable? Should they not all be honourable? And how many people know or care about the difference between a Lord and a Lord Baron, or if someone is Reverend or Very Reverend? And, what may I ask, is a Reverend Canon?
One thing I haven’t yet revealed is that at the end of this list, which was sensibly ranked in alphabetical order, there was one additional option that had clearly been omitted and then added as an afterthought…Queen! Had she marked a thesis and challenged the university about the absence of this title?
Titles remain important to universities, though perhaps more important to older institutions. Nevertheless, somehow, they continue to exist. Because I suppose they serve a purpose.
I guess it is still useful to have labels of identity and to understand hierarchies. Given that a lot of work in the social sciences considers what seem to be the inevitable and tragic histories of abuse arising from power imbalances, these days we often shy away from hierarchies. But some structures continue to be important.
At work I think it is good if you have a boss whom you respect and who respects you. That can be easier than working for yourself and trying to satisfy your own, sometimes unrealistic, standards. And having a leader can resolve uncertainties and provide direction.
One challenge that universities have with student group tasks is that there is seldom a real boss in the group. Some academics maintain that group work serves the function of preparing students for the workplace. But I don’t think many students will ever be thrown into a team at work that does not have a leader, or at least an umpire.
Another interesting thing about the list above is how many titles are hereditary. We’ve moved away from such titles because they are so limiting and embed pre-judgement. Today we aspire towards meritocracy, where every individual has the opportunity to better themselves and fulfil their potential irrespective of their origins.
This is clearly a good thing, but it also creates something of a vacuum where individuals rather than inheriting an identity … tinker, tailor, soldier, spy … from their parents, can build, but importantly have to build, their own identity from scratch.
One sometimes sees the burden of this as individuals cling to group identities, adhering faithfully to political or social identities, while their own individual identities are still forming, because these provide a sense of belonging, structure, and sometimes even codes of morality. Humans do not like to be alone or all-at-sea in the moral landscape. It is hard for new students. They begin without any titles, and what we do give them on the first day – a student number – is seldom enough.
Academic titles can provide not only the recognition of being in a community but also a sense of progress. Many people find it reassuring and rewarding to feel they are progressing along an upward path.
Across society the number of titles in common use has declined but at universities certain titles have proliferated with more and more Associate Deans, Deputy Deans, Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, and Provosts. Also, among professional staff there is often a way to fashion a role as Director or Executive Director. Bestowing a prestigious and unique title to secure or reward staff is financially more prudent and establishes fewer precedents than giving more pay.
But recent university titles are not just related to reward, they also reflect the increasing importance of management, not as universities have become profit-based businesses – they haven’t – but as universities increasingly adopt mission-orientated strategies rather than remaining as simple federations of scholars, aiming to advance the world through learning.
There can be a feeling of snobbery in titles. So many individuals use their titles as little as possible. Oscar Wilde said that ‘ambition was the last refuge of the failure’ but perhaps the 70s band Skyhooks was right ‘ego is not a dirty word’. I often say that my role in the university involves harnessing university staff egos for the public good, and I do believe that universities continue to contribute enormously to the public good. Perhaps it is not bad that academics are sometimes intent on what Sir Humphrey, and Disraeli before him, might call ‘climbing the greasy pole’.
Professor Merlin Crossley is DVC Academic Quality at UNSW.