Keskustelua
Docent or Adjunct
Professor?
Professor Kaarle Hämeri would have done better to
ensure that he had properly defined his English terminology
first, before permitting his professorial
hackles to be raised quite so thoroughly and then
defending the professorial corner as vigorously as he
does in “Docent is not a Professor” in Acatiimi 5/2013.
Inevitably, as a result of the differences in the academic
vocabulary in British and American English(es),
BrE and AmE, he has run up against conflicting terminological
customs in the two cultures. For example,
an yliopistonlehtori would generally be regarded,
I think, as a Lecturer or Senior Lecturer in BrE, but as
an Assistant Professor in AmE. Similarly, the title of
apulaisprofessori (which I assume was largely, if not
entirely, converted upwards to full professori quite
some years ago) would in many instances be rendered
as Reader in BrE, while its equivalent in AmE usage is
undoubtedly Associate Professor. Meanwhile, professori
is unproblematic (if such a concept as an unproblematic
professor can be envisaged).
In addition, a real cultural difference also exists
in that, whereas British and American students are
frequently cognizant of their teachers’ formal academic
titles and their use and significance, their egalitarian-
to-a-fault Finnish confrères (and consoeurs)
often remain ignorant to a fault of what each label
signifies. It is also worth remembering that in many
cultures, both within Europe and further afield, the
term Docent signifies a university instructor with only
the lowest academic qualifications, whilst in many
countries, some as close as, say, Estonia, there is no
equivalent at all of the title of dosentti.
Given such basic conflicts in BrE and AmE usage
and custom, it is perhaps inevitable that we Finns have
found it impossible to agree on the best rendering into
English of the term dosentti. Given that the intrinsic
significance of the title may have changed since 2010
(if so, how and why?), when it was suggested in 2001
that I apply for a dosenttuuri at Oulu University, a common
idea in circulation was that the title would grant
recognition of academic ability at a level “equivalent
to” that of apulaisprofessori. On that basis, I was persuaded
to apply precisely because the Finnish academic
hierarchy was perceived as so rigid – with no
room for personal within-post advancement based on
publication and performance – that the award of this
title would give me a degree of “Associate Professorial”
equivalence and responsibility – although, inevitably,
given the rigidity of those times, with no change in salary
or, more importantly, actual status.
That the Korkeakoulusanasto and, more particularly,
the Suomen Dosenttiliitto have chosen to regard the
older rendering, Adjunct Professor, as still valid may or
may not be defensible, dependent in part of the present
perception of the role played by the dosentti and
in part on the variety of English preferred. Nevertheless,
after 38 years at the University of Joensuu and
the University of Eastern Finland, what I still consider
indefensible is the cocksure attitude of some Professors
within the academic hierarchy who continue to
defend their own corner so vociferously, rather than
attempting to ensure a fairer crack of the whip for
even the humblest of their colleagues.
John A Stotesbury,
FEA, FD/PhD (Umeå), Fil. lis. (Umeå), PGCE/TEFL (London),
MA (Edinburgh)
Chair (BrE)/President (AmE), Finnish Society for the
Study of English (FINSSE)
UNIFI recommends ‘docent’
Translating academic terminology from Finnish into
English is not straightforward. Finding an expression
for something that exists in slightly different form in English speaking cultures is actually quite complicated.
This is the case with the title of docent. Universities
Finland UNIFI realized this in the case of this
title and sent a recommendation for the Universities
in February 2010. UNIFI points out that translating
docent as adjunct professor is misleading, as the title
no longer implies any form of job position (as was
the case until the end of 2009). UNIFI therefore recommends
translating the title into English as “title
of docent”.
Kaarle Hämeri
Docent in physics Professor
Editorial comment: Discussion surrounding the title of
Docent has been vigorous and now spans columns in
three issues of this publication. For now, this discussion
is at an end. Should fresh perspectives emerge,
the discussion can be revived.
‘Style-sheet? What’s a stylesheet?’
In the course of twenty-something years in Helsinki
revising the English of doctoral theses, this is a response
to my question about citation style and documentation
I’ve heard depressingly often. Of course the
matter is not all that simple any more, since there is a
bewildering array of such things available, adapted to
the variety of requirements imposed by an increasing
array of scholarly disciplines. CBE, MLA, APA, MHRA,
LSA, CSS — the list goes on and on. Citation styles in
law bear little relation to those in sociology; theology and history are different again, and the harder sciences
have still other requirements. Publishing houses
and journal editors have their own, sometimes quirky
variants on well-known styles. And so on.
My off-the-cuff estimate is that at least four out
of five PhD candidates come to me with a completed
doctorate for language revision and not the slightest
idea what a style-sheet is. They have simply been
slavishly copying what they conceive is appropriate
in their subject. This matter should in my view have
been settled by the supervisor at an early stage in the
candidature, or, better, by an undergraduate course
in academic writing. It is a dereliction of duty by supervisors
to allow a candidate to submit to language
revision after many years of unremitting and dedicated
work, only to be told by a reviser that the documentation
style is a dog’s breakfast and needs to be
fixed. A few basic points should be made clear.
The very first point is that a candidate cannot expect
a thesis written in English to be acceptable if it is
presented in a style of documentationused by Finnish
or some other language. There are a multitude of large
and small differences which need to be understood
and incorporated. Once again, making this clear at
the outset is the supervisor’s business. The supervisor
knows what is required, and should pass that knowledge
on — if he or she does not know, it’s a failure of
duty to the candidate.
Next, a style sheet must not be short. The typical
journal style sheet of two to five pages is no more
than an initial guide. At least a sizeable monograph is
required if most problems are to be resolved. Potential
problems are endless — how to do titles in series,
online publications of various sorts, newspapers, interviews,
older printed material, sentence capitalization
or full capitalization, how to resolve the inevitable
inconsistencies, what constitutes a correct place
reference, whether to omit legal identifiers from the
publisher, the many well-known but not necessarily
transparent conventions, how to abbreviate, and so on and so forth.
A further point is that the advice to ‘do what soand-
so did, because that was a good thesis’ is irresponsible.
So-and-so was, like the rest of us, fallible
and human, and hence made mistakes, created inconsistencies,
and inadvertently changed the rules.
If he or she was given the same advice, the previous
model’s errors were both compounded and added to.
The end result of such a process can only be chaos and
confusion.
Lastly, while online styles are useful up to a point,
they do not teach the candidate the underlying principles,
so that when the guide fails, the student is left
rudderless. Simple distinctions such as those between
styles sused for academic purposes, for bibliography
and library science, and for the book trade are
often very unclear.
The whole point of using a style sheet is that the
readers of the thesis know exactly what means what
in the in-text references, footnotes, and references.
This should not be a source of head-scratching and
puzzlement, but simply a seamless and perfectly clear
guide to what the writer has done, consulted, and
referred to. Since many of the detailed rules in style
sheets are necessarily arbitrary, following them to the
letter is crucial. Documentation style should aid the
act of communication which a thesis is, not impede
it with obscurity and inconsistency. It should also remain
inconspicuous, an apparatus that is hardly noticed
because it works well.
Standards here need to be raised meet the best
international norms. Pestiferous though style sheets
may be, they exist for a reason — unambiguous and
reliable scholarly communication. Superviors ignore
them at their peril.
R. W. McConchie
Department of Modern Languages
University of helsinki
- Painetussa lehdessä sivu 34
|