Ian Dubé

When I was very young I wanted to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.  I had no idea what the job entailed, but for a boy growing up on an island colony the title conjured images of knights cantering in shining armour, slaying dragons and rescuing damsels in distress.  That my imagery was naive is perhaps best illustrated by the large numbers of protesters currently occupying our cities:  Perceptions of finance ministers are clearly more akin to dragons than their slayers.

The consequences of incorrectly associating titles and designations with personal attributes are much less amusing when considering the quality of information from a source whose name bears additional letters.  Such assessments are absolutely crucial in this, the age of information.  Ideally, a designation in the form of a prefix (e.g., Sir, or Prof.) or suffix (e.g., PhD, or FRS) should be a cogent and widely acknowledged indicator of the holder’s high honours, experience and expertise derived from decades of education and training, and/or adherence to stringent professional codes of conduct.  It may therefore be wise to hold in high regard relevant information derived from a source with an appropriate designation or title.

Unfortunately, the array of professional designations has exploded in recent decades, the quality of institutions granting them varies widely and, to make matters much worse, the holders of designations increasingly use them out of context.  The prefix “Dr.” is used by medical doctors, dentists, chiropractors, acupuncturists, veterinarians, opticians, naturopaths, and academics.  Degrees may be awarded by institutions ranging from widely recognized as being among elite schools, to relatively unknown entities.  Professional associations, complete with membership criteria, annual fees and appealing designations increasingly demand attention.  Designations may be used stringently by their holders (e.g., a physician who uses the “Dr.” title only while working in a clinical setting) or as palpable branding (e.g., an optician running for public office using “Dr.” on election campaign materials).

It is imperative that the consumer of expert opinions, recommendations, and reports thoroughly evaluate the reliability of the source.  If the informant uses titles and designations then asking the following may help determine if the attributes conveyed by the those extra letters are appropriate.

1) Is the designation or title being used to convey expertise that is relevant to the topic being considered?  Be rigorous:  Being honoured with two Nobel Prizes (for chemistry and peace) does not make the recipient an expert in human infectious diseases.  (Remember Vitamin C and the common cold?)

2) What institution or organization granted the designation and how is it objectively ranked?  Ignore self-ranking data and focus on independent evaluations by organizations with little vested interests in the outcomes.

3) What significance does the designation actually have?  Is it in a field recognized by prominent multidisciplinary centers of training/education? If not, ask why.

4) Is the title or degree designation being used as a marketing brand?  If so, is such use legitimate, or fraudulent?  If the latter, what does that say about the information itself?

5) What is the track record of the informant?  Is there bona fide evidence that the source, regardless of designations, is actually any good?