Interns calling supervisors by first name

[pediatric_psydoc]

Psychologists who also supervise interns, what are your thoughts on interns calling you by your first name when not in the company of patients?

This is my second year supervising interns and so far I have had them call me “dr [my last name],” as this is what I did with my supervisors throughout the majority of my training and this is also what individuals in the office call me. The only exception is when physicians and I are without staff or patients present, we call each other by our first names (there are no psychologists in the office other than me).

I have actually had interns who are just meeting me say “Hello [my first name],” which I have found very presumptuous and unprofessional.

Looking back on my own training, I did have a few supervisors who told me to call them by their first names when we were not in the company of patients, but this was not the norm and I always addressed them as “doctor” unless told to do otherwise.

Thoughts on this topic are much appreciated. Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

You always call supervisors Dr. XXXX unless they have specifically asked you to call them by something else. If an intern called me by my first name, I would kindly correct them once. Next time would be a little more terse. Hasn't popped up yet. Though I am male and have been told I'm somewhat intimidating, so that may explain it somewhat.

 

[pediatric_psydoc]

You always call supervisors Dr. XXXX unless they have specifically asked you to call them by something else. If an intern called me by my first name, I would kindly correct them once. Next time would be a little more terse. Hasn't popped up yet. Though I am male and have been told I'm somewhat intimidating, so that may explain it somewhat.

Completely agree. I corrected them and they looked surprised. I wonder if being a female in my early 30s is part of why this has happened.

 

[erg923]

As matter of professional and social decorum, I would say students should start out as Dr. XXXX.

I really don't think this carries much benefit throughout the supervisory relationship though. As long as we are working well together, I don't feel the need to remind them that I have a Ph.D, and they do not yet.

 

[WisNeuro]

Got to maintain that frame.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Completely agree. I corrected them and they looked surprised. I wonder if being a female in my early 30s is part of why this has happened.

I completely agree with WisNeuro - always refer to as Dr. **** until corrected. However, in my grad program, all but one supervisor (out of dozens) preferred to be called by their first name. This is a program in CA and I imagine the norms are different by region. I wonder if this student came from a similar program as I did and just didn’t know the proper etiquette. With that said, I always refer to supervisors as Dr. until I’m told not to.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I wonder if being a female in my early 30s is part of why this has happened.

I wonder what type of students you are supervising? Or, more importantly, what type of programs they are coming from.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Dr. XXX, in all contexts. It's something we've explicitly discussed and agreed on as a training faculty, and we also talk about it during orientation, to help remove any ambiguity or anything that might be perceived as preferential treatment.

In my own training history, every supervisor was "Dr. XXX" until told otherwise; and even then, I still usually reverted back to "Dr. XXX."

 

[bcliff]

Interesting thread.

Internal training was mixed, but the majority typically went by Dr. x. Status quo at all other training sites (all AMCs) was consistently first name basis.

I always defaulted to Dr. x when entering a new environment and would wait to either pick up on social cues or be explicitly asked to use supervisor first name.

 

[SportsNeuroPsych]

Agreed.

Always defer to Dr. XYZ from the outset unless it is explicitly mentioned to use the first name. Definitely the safer option. I remember there always being discussion of this amongst my cohort during grad school with regards to faculty and practicum/internship supervisors. Not as much of a big deal during post-doc and my supervisors didn't mind one way or the other when we were speaking amongst ourselves.

 

[str63]

I come from a program where most of the faculty went by their first names so I am comfortable with trainees calling me by my first name when not with patients. However, I absolutely agree that it should be Dr. X until told otherwise. I do think gender and age could play a role. I've even had emails addressed to me and male supervisors that have said Hi STR (my first name) and Dr. X - prior to me telling someone they can call me by first name.

 

[pediatric_psydoc]

I come from a program where most of the faculty went by their first names so I am comfortable with trainees calling me by my first name when not with patients. However, I absolutely agree that it should be Dr. X until told otherwise. I do think gender and age could play a role. I've even had emails addressed to me and male supervisors that have said Hi STR (my first name) and Dr. X - prior to me telling someone they can call me by first name.

When I get emails from the clinic manager, they are addressed “dear doctor X.” Then when it was an email addressed to me and a male counselor who is at a nearby clinic, it became “dear [his first name] and [my first name]”

 

[cara susanna]

Part of my training, and even my current professional life, is never knowing when to call someone by their first name or "Dr." I am wildly inconsistent and never seem to understand the rules.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Part of my training, and even my current professional life, is never knowing when to call someone by their first name or "Dr." I am wildly inconsistent and never seem to understand the rules.

Ditto. The approach I've developed: the first time I'm meeting someone in a professional context, I'll always refer to them as Dr/Ms/Mr/etc. After that, I typically move to first name, unless talking with them in front of a patient or trainee. Emails I usually keep a little more formal (i.e., hang on to the title), unless it's someone I talk with semi-frequently.

 

[erg923]

Again...for interns??? Really?

I want interns to feel "at home" and supported. Ya know, sorta like how we make patients feel in order to maximize their supervised efforts?

The best way to evoke feigned effort and respect is to do it by evoking empty signs of "authority." The Dr. thing is mostly empty in my mind. Frankly, it would be totally empty, if it not were for the license they are working under. Calling me Dr X vs Mr. X serves little purposes except to remind otherwise diligent professionals of a hierarchy. If you believe in any of the I/O and OD literature that you were probably NOT taught in psychology graduate school (irony?), a concern such as this would seem to be of little importance (and certainly not empirically supported).

When I see someone for supervision, specifically someone this advanced: I want to know how they are doing. I want to know if how they are doing is affecting their performance with patients, me, and in life in general. I want to know high risk cases. I want to know what they are learning. I want to know what they think about what I think about the cases and my feedback/interpretation. I want to discuss any discrepancies to help them learn. I want to know what they are going to do next (which is ultimately up to me due to my license).

 

[PsyDr]

The "Dr." title reflects the achievement of 20+ years of education. Downplaying that is something to be wary of.


Etiquette rule is:

1) professional title is alway used in professional settings. Even between colleagues. Watch a British medical show.

2) Signature is First name Surname, degree. Especially in hospital and medical settings because jcaho iiirc. Rarely, Dr first name surname in correspondence of degree is already established. NEVER Dr. first and last name,degree.

3) in social settings, in the USA, the title is NEVER used. This is supposed to be reflect that America doesn’t have a caste system, thanks Mrs Vanderbilt. In Europe, the title is used in some social settings. The person with the title is announced first. So, Dr. and Mr.Smith. Never Mr. and Dr Smith. There’s the entire cast system there with a lot of other rules.

 

[erg923]

The "Dr." title reflects the achievement of 20+ years of education. Downplaying that is something to be wary of.


Etiquette rule is:

1) professional title is alway used in professional settings. Even between colleagues. Watch a British medical show.

2) Signature is First name Surname, degree. Especially in hospital and medical settings because jcaho iiirc. Rarely, Dr first name surname in correspondence of degree is already established. NEVER Dr. first and last name,degree.

3) in social settings, in the USA, the title is NEVER used. This is supposed to be reflect that America doesn’t have a caste system, thanks Mrs Vanderbilt. In Europe, the title is used in some social settings. The person with the title is announced first. So, Dr. and Mr.Smith. Never Mr. and Dr Smith. There’s the entire cast system there with a lot of other rules.

The same psychological principles we use to facilitate patient effort and accountability should be used to facilitate student/intern effort. If not, we are pushing hokum? Authoritarianism probably wont work very well. Sans Psychopathy....

There is no real reason an intern should call me Mr. X vs Dr X. Its just personal preference .The only difference is I don't want to be a total douche! Somewhat kidding....

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My take: with respect to trainees, there is indeed a hierarchy in place. You can certainly provide an encouraging and supportive atmosphere while still recognizing said hierarchy. In my experience, it also does help to maintain appropriate professional boundaries, which on internship with advanced trainees can become blurred if supervisors aren't careful in that respect. And using titles in supervisory relationships helps to model and encourage professionalism (see PsyDr's post above). In my case, I provide the same respect to interns, in that I never refer to them by their first name in front of patients (which can also help to avoid undercutting their professional role).

With colleagues, when in doubt, I've never seen a negative outcome from erring on the side of using a title.

 

[erg923]

My take: with respect to trainees, there is indeed a hierarchy in place. You can certainly provide an encouraging and supportive atmosphere while still recognizing said hierarchy. In my experience, it also does help to maintain appropriate professional boundaries, which on internship with advanced trainees can become blurred if supervisors aren't careful in that respect. And using titles in supervisory relationships helps to model and encourage professionalism (see PsyDr's post above). In my case, I provide the same respect to interns, in that I never refer to them by their first name in front of patients (which can also help to avoid undercutting their professional role).

With colleagues, when in doubt, I've never seen a negative outcome from erring on the side of using a title.

That all sounds like personal preference, which is fine.

I recall the days of Yore (a legitimate time frame according to "Friends") when the VA SUDS units/team was ripe with extremely inappropriate social jocsailing and ball busting behavior. And, no, it wasn't an all Male environment. And then came interns...

Long story short: I do not want students or interns to really think about any hierarchy's when they are learning from me. Its my license, so they know the implications from the get-go from my usual speech. I am pretty genuine and transparent, as I expect them to be (within reason).

 

[deleted343839]

Part of my training, and even my current professional life, is never knowing when to call someone by their first name or "Dr." I am wildly inconsistent and never seem to understand the rules.

Working in medicine, I've warmed to a culture in which it's totally consistent to be drinking buddies one night and the next day call each other "doctor" in the clinic.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I’m a first name kinda guy. To each their own (and setting specific) but my supervisees/interns/students are well aware of the differences between their status and mine, regardless of what they call me.

 

[WisNeuro]

That all sounds like personal preference, which is fine.

Long story short: I do not want students or interns to really think about any hierarchy's when they are learning from me. Its my license, so they know the implications from the get-go from my usual speech. I am pretty genuine and transparent, as I expect them to be (within reason).

To not have them think about any hierarchy is fine, if you want them to live in some fantasy world. Truth is, they'll be dealing with hierarchies and differential power for most of their career, for most people. Might as well give them a taste on internship. Also, it's pretty clear that I am their supervisor. I am not a friend, I am not a colleague, I am their supervisor. They answer to me, my word is the last thing when it comes to clinical work and research in my purview. There is nothing wrong with the hierarchy, unless you want there to be.

 

[PsyDr]

That all sounds like personal preference, which is fine.

I recall the days of Yore (a legitimate time frame according to "Friends") when the VA SUDS units/team was ripe with extremely inappropriate social jocsailing and ball busting behavior. And, no, it wasn't an all Male environment. And then came interns...

Long story short: I do not want students or interns to really think about any hierarchy's when they are learning from me. Its my license, so they know the implications from the get-go from my usual speech. I am pretty genuine and transparent, as I expect them to be (within reason).

oh come on. They wouldn’t be your students if there was zero hierarchy. You’re happy with them assuming that hierarchy.

 

[pediatric_psydoc]

I come from a program where most of the faculty went by their first names so I am comfortable with trainees calling me by my first name when not with patients. However, I absolutely agree that it should be Dr. X until told otherwise. I do think gender and age could play a role. I've even had emails addressed to me and male supervisors that have said Hi STR (my first name) and Dr. X - prior to me telling someone they can call me by first name.

I think that what we saw modeled in our programs influences how we view this issue, as you point out. In my program, we never referred to professors as anything other than “Dr. X.” I was very surprised at my first practicum when a well respected board certified child psychologist told me, “Call me [first name].”

 

[Ollie123]

It has come up here before, but these threads always surprise me.

Throughout my education (undergrad RA on up), I would start by awkwardly calling everyone doctor. Within a week everyone almost invariably moves to first names, usually telling me to do so with a hint of amusement in their voice that I ever thought to call them doctor in the first place and am being utterly ridiculous.

I can seriously think of two people who went by dr that I had contact with throughout the entirety of my training. Literally no one I work with now does, including our chair. One I am pretty sure would have been fine going by first name, but was just so adorably socially awkward I suspect he never thought to correct anyone and was such an amazingly successful researcher people just went with it (including his own superiors). The other was just a jerk. To each their own, but I really am just surprised at how prevalent it seems to be on this board. Between 4 major universities and however many practicums or other settings you think I would have encountered more of it by now from the responses here.

I go by my first name aside from initial introductions to patients or when I am calling to yell at someone.

 

[forensic13]

I came from a program where most of our faculty and supervisors had us call them by their first names (when not around patients, obviously). Currently on internship, my supervisors have us call them Dr. SoAndSo. I don't mind either one to start off a supervisory relationship, but it is awkward if you stick around later and after to change from calling someone Doctor to calling them Nancy.

 

[foreverbull]

As I"ve commented in a thread awhile back, women's achievements have been overlooked and minimized historically (including titles that they achieve), so not only to establish a clear boundary/framework, but to instill a sense of respect for women's accomplishments, I hold on to my title where appropriate (without flashing it around everywhere to be pretentious, of course), but to be fair, I haven't supervised since internship, when I didn't have the "Dr." title anyway.

It's all just a matter of personal preference, though. I don't think it's a terrible thing to be on a first-name basis with supervisors, in fact, in my experience, it was first-name basis for most of my supervisors, but I do think interns assuming their supervisors are okay with first names is a bit presumptuous; I'm in favor of observing what the supervisor introduces himself/herself/themselves as upon the first meeting and/or in emails to the supervisee.

 

[ExecutiveDysfunction]

First and foremost, I think we’re all in agreement that anyone (intern or not) making the assumption that first names are okay is a bit of an overstep. Good on you for modeling appropriate boundaries in that case.

I don’t have much to add that hasn’t been said already, but one point I’d like to raise is that I don’t believe use of a title is going to necessarily instill good professional boundaries, understanding of institutional hierarchy, or is necessarily is a good thing at its core. It sounds like those who advocate using titles also do a number of other things to make professional boundaries more clear that probably have a greater effect.

 

[WisNeuro]

It has come up here before, but these threads always surprise me.

Throughout my education (undergrad RA on up), I would start by awkwardly calling everyone doctor. Within a week everyone almost invariably moves to first names, usually telling me to do so with a hint of amusement in their voice that I ever thought to call them doctor in the first place and am being utterly ridiculous.

I can seriously think of two people who went by dr that I had contact with throughout the entirety of my training. Literally no one I work with now does, including our chair. One I am pretty sure would have been fine going by first name, but was just so adorably socially awkward I suspect he never thought to correct anyone and was such an amazingly successful researcher people just went with it (including his own superiors). The other was just a jerk. To each their own, but I really am just surprised at how prevalent it seems to be on this board. Between 4 major universities and however many practicums or other settings you think I would have encountered more of it by now from the responses here.

I go by my first name aside from initial introductions to patients or when I am calling to yell at someone.

I've had the opposite for the most part in most of my settings. Aside from my postdoc and my grad school faculty PI, it's all been Dr. for supervisors. I've seen it less often in research settings and academia, but almost every clinical setting I've been in uses the Dr title in training and clinical settings.

 

[PsyDr]

If you willingly give up the title, you should be prepared for a downward spiral of less respect. This is seriously bad for the profession, in any gender.

 

[modestmousktr]

Hi! This might just be a California thing? But I do think culture is involved. I go to a reputable, funded, Ph.D. program in CA.

I always err on the side of calling people “Dr” the first time I meet them, but have found that the only people that want to continue being called “Dr. So-and-so” by colleagues, supervisees, etc, not in front of clients, seem to end up being somewhat outcasted at their organization and seem to have interpersonal difficulties on teams. This is my tiny, tiny n of however many having done clinical work in this state for seven years.

If people want me to continue calling them doctor, I am happy to do so, but personally find it a bit odd and think other students in my area would as well. Maybe your student has had similar experiences. But, that being said, I would never start calling someone by their first name unless they had explicitly told me to- I think it’s just a norm here that most folks will explicitly tell you to.

 

[Ollie123]

Definitely not just a CA thing (my experiences are all east coast). Could be a research thing - I've pretty exclusively trained in research-intensive places. This certainly extends to the clinical world at the big academic hospitals though.

I am not sure how it can be bad for the profession if it isn't a "psychology" thing. I agree it would be very bad if it was just us doing it. Everyone I meet seems to go by first name - physicians, surgeons, basic scientists, statisticians, etc. Even the handful of very-high-ups (Deans, etc.) that I've met have gone by first name.

 

[cara susanna]

As I"ve commented in a thread awhile back, women's achievements have been overlooked and minimized historically (including titles that they achieve), so not only to establish a clear boundary/framework, but to instill a sense of respect for women's accomplishments, I hold on to my title where appropriate (without flashing it around everywhere to be pretentious, of course), but to be fair, I haven't supervised since internship, when I didn't have the "Dr." title anyway.

It's all just a matter of personal preference, though. I don't think it's a terrible thing to be on a first-name basis with supervisors, in fact, in my experience, it was first-name basis for most of my supervisors, but I do think interns assuming their supervisors are okay with first names is a bit presumptuous; I'm in favor of observing what the supervisor introduces himself/herself/themselves as upon the first meeting and/or in emails to the supervisee.

Yes, I had a colleague (another woman psychologist) advise me against letting patients call me by my first name because, as a woman who presents as pretty young-looking, it may downplay my authority. I did that for a while but after I returned to the Midwest I've since reverted back to giving patients the option.

 

[bcliff]

Definitely not just a CA thing (my experiences are all east coast). Could be a research thing - I've pretty exclusively trained in research-intensive places. This certainly extends to the clinical world at the big academic hospitals though.

I am not sure how it can be bad for the profession if it isn't a "psychology" thing. I agree it would be very bad if it was just us doing it. Everyone I meet seems to go by first name - physicians, surgeons, basic scientists, statisticians, etc. Even the handful of very-high-ups (Deans, etc.) that I've met have gone by first name.

Agree with Ollie's point -- I've had dual (i.e., research and clinical) relationships with a large number of supervisors throughout my training and have similarly trained consistently within research intensive institutions. Most supervisors with whom I was comfortable using their first name were also research mentors and supervisors, while most who I referred to as Dr. x were purely clinical supervisors. Still though, to play it safe, I always defaulted to Dr. x when first interacting with a PhD/PsyD.

Anecdotally, compared to the PhD students I knew throughout my training, PsyD students tended to more consistently refer to faculty/other psychologists as Dr. x -- No clue if this discrepancy is generalizable or not though.

In addition to research involvement, I wonder if there's a correlation with small vs. large cohort programs (e.g., due to increased familiarity).

 

[jdawg2017]

As a current PhD student, I feel like the following rules are good:

1) If you haven't met the person, call them Dr.
2) If they haven't told you NOT to call them Dr. call them Dr. (our department head is INSISTENT that she be called Dr. despite her husband, as professor too, not caring -- it may be b/c she has to deal with a lot of bull crap from day-to-day).
3) If you are in a clinical setting, call your supervisor/anyone with a doctorate degree Dr... (I even call post-docs Drs. at the VA I am doing a prac at, as they are doctors; we are on a first name basis in private, but just because they are not licensed does not mean I should not use their titles with patients).

There are a lot of other bizarre rules... I am sure this varies. I/everyone in my research setting (AMCs on the East Coast) call everyone in research meetings, including super-famous PIs, their first name. Not exactly sure why this is... but yeah.

Also, I have had one professor (a neuropsychologist) insist we call him "Professor XXX," because he wants to make sure he is not mistaken as a physician. I suppose this could be a fair point, if you are primarily a professor, as I frequently have people assuming I am either a) training to be a neurologist or b) training to be a psychiatrist.


EDIT: I will also add one thing that is SUPER confusing is when people sign their name "XXX" and not "Dr. XXX," without attaching a signature line. If people do it repeatedly in emails, I feel like that is where some people may assume first-name basis is okay. I, personally, never make this assumption until being told "you can call my XXX" in person or over email.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

As a current PhD student, I feel like the following rules are good:

1) If you haven't met the person, call them Dr.
2) If they haven't told you NOT to call them Dr. call them Dr. (our department head is INSISTENT that she be called Dr. despite her husband, as professor too, not caring -- it may be b/c she has to deal with a lot of bull crap from day-to-day).
3) If you are in a clinical setting, call your supervisor/anyone with a doctorate degree Dr... (I even call post-docs Drs. at the VA I am doing a prac at, as they are doctors; we are on a first name basis in private, but just because they are not licensed does not mean I should not use their titles with patients).

There are a lot of other bizarre rules... I am sure this varies. I/everyone in my research setting (AMCs on the East Coast) call everyone in research meetings, including super-famous PIs, their first name. Not exactly sure why this is... but yeah.

Also, I have had one professor (a neuropsychologist) insist we call him "Professor XXX," because he wants to make sure he is not mistaken as a physician. I suppose this could be a fair point, if you are primarily a professor, as I frequently have people assuming I am either a) training to be a neurologist or b) training to be a psychiatrist.


EDIT: I will also add one thing that is SUPER confusing is when people sign their name "XXX" and not "Dr. XXX," without attaching a signature line. If people do it repeatedly in emails, I feel like that is where some people may assume first-name basis is okay. I, personally, never make this assumption until being told "you can call my XXX" in person or over email.

This is a good point. For email, I essentially always opt for increased formality. But if in a reply, a colleague ends the email with their first name (which is what I typically do with co-workers), I then move to using their first name in future communications. If they don't, unless I talk with them frequently and/or know them relatively well, I stick with the title.

And yes, it's always interesting to see the variety of experiences people have had regarding this. In my graduate program, it differed from lab to lab. Some advisors were always "Dr. XXX," while others went by their first names. As was mentioned in a post above, it was typically the heavily clinical or clinical-only supervisors with whom we stuck with Dr., and primarily academic and research folks who opted for first name.

I can say this also extended to friends from non-psych doctoral fields. Some of their advisors always opted, or at least never corrected, the use of titles, while others went by first names.

 

[pediatric_psydoc]

Definitely not just a CA thing (my experiences are all east coast). Could be a research thing - I've pretty exclusively trained in research-intensive places. This certainly extends to the clinical world at the big academic hospitals though.

I am not sure how it can be bad for the profession if it isn't a "psychology" thing. I agree it would be very bad if it was just us doing it. Everyone I meet seems to go by first name - physicians, surgeons, basic scientists, statisticians, etc. Even the handful of very-high-ups (Deans, etc.) that I've met have gone by first name.

This is interesting, because in my experience, attending physicians are first name basis with each other, but have residents call them “dr X” as well as medical students. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an attending have a student or resident call them by their first name.

I would say a fourth year medical student is probably more akin to a psychological intern, as both are completely their last year prior to earning their terminal degree. Residents already have their MD/DO degree and are probably more akin to psychological postdocs despite residency being longer than psychological postdocs.

 

[Sanman]

In general, I usually default to Dr. Whoever when I first speak to a colleague and use first names when I am more familiar with them. I always defaulted to Dr. Whoever as an intern. Some supervisors wanted it to remain Dr. whoever and some asked us to refer to them by their first name when not in front of patients as we were seen as junior colleagues (particularly by the second half of internship). It is mixed at my current VA as well.

As an aside, I usually go by Dr. Sanman now. I used to sometimes go by my first name when I first graduated. I found among my non-psych colleagues that using my first name tended to make interactions more friendly and social, but slowed down my workflow. On units where I referred to myself as Dr. Sanman, things were less social, but I got more things I needed ( charts and records were handed over faster, chairs were brought over for me at the nursing station, people would log off the computer so I could use it, etc).

 

[Ollie123]

To be fair, physicians have had me call them by their first name. I have limited contact with residents and extremely limited contact with residents during their interactions with attending physicians, so I cannot necessarily say with any degree of certainty that wasn't going on.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My anecdotal experiences with medical trainees (medical and pharmacy residents and interns, PA and NP students): they've almost always used formal titles in interactions with supervisors. More advanced residents and fellows have sometimes used first names in informal settings. Social work trainees have more commonly used first names with their supervisors in various settings, but "Dr" with physicians and psychologists.

 

[Neo_Super_Ego]

As a current PsyD student, reading this post was insightful, and so I want to offer another perspective.

The best supervisors I have worked with did not emphasize their titles. Instead, they recognized that respect was less about their title and more about how they related to trainees (i.e. by being a nice human being in the room) while maintaining good boundaries about the hierarchical role that everyone already knows they hold. Of note: I have had supervisors that I fondly referred to solely by their titles, but they never had to ask or emphasize those titles.

From a trainee standpoint, emphasizing the "Dr." title with interns often communicate that the supervisor likely cares more about the power differential than their supervisee. As interns and externs, we are already extremely aware of the power dynamics and hierarchy that exists in the supervisor- trainees relationship, so when a supervisor emphasizes the need for the "Dr. title" it comes across as power play on the part of the supervisor even if that was not their intent. As such, they are often perceived as impersonal, uncaring and/or unapproachable. The reality is that most interns would call you Dr. XYZ anyway and the ones who do not are probably not being "intentionally" disrespectful OR if they are being intentionally disrespectful, they would do the same exact thing when they call you by your "title."

I believe that respect is not defined by the title a supervisor holds, but by how they carry themselves in that role. You can maintain hierarchy and authority without a title because the nature of your position already secures your authority (i.e. it clarifies power differential). As a trainee who grew up in a culture where respect is highly valued, I often call supervisors by their title until they tell me otherwise, but to be honest, the boundaries and respect I have for them does not come from using their "title." If anything, the level of respect I already feel is diminished when a supervisor emphasizes their "Dr. title " because it comes across as if they have made assumptions about my character (i.e. they have assumed that maintaining hierarchy by emphasizing the Dr. title" is the only way that trainees can be taught to show respect or maintain boundary).

In situations where trainees call supervisors by their first names when not invited to do so, it may be more useful to directly express concerns about that and discuss your preference with that trainee without automatically assuming their motives and intent. This is because much like a therapist-patient relationship, the power differential in the supervisor-supervisee relationship is always present, and related to individual perspectives and/or expectations.

 

[Jegg]

 

[tr]

Definitely not just a CA thing (my experiences are all east coast). Could be a research thing - I've pretty exclusively trained in research-intensive places. This certainly extends to the clinical world at the big academic hospitals though.

I am not sure how it can be bad for the profession if it isn't a "psychology" thing. I agree it would be very bad if it was just us doing it. Everyone I meet seems to go by first name - physicians, surgeons, basic scientists, statisticians, etc. Even the handful of very-high-ups (Deans, etc.) that I've met have gone by first name.

I'm not a psychologist (MD psychiatry PhD developmental neurobiology, I keep a foot in both worlds and I like to lurk in your forum, sorrynotsorry) but I definitely think this is a research thing. In my experience, in the research world, nobody but nobody goes by Dr. to coworkers. Even some very elderly Nobel prizewinners at my PhD institution all went by their first names to their students, postdocs, and colleagues.

In the clinical world, in my experience everyone out of med/grad school goes by Dr to patients, and attendings/supervisors are Dr to their trainees (interns/residents/fellows). I have lots of psychologist colleagues also and they are also Dr to their supervisees most of the time, at least initially. I'm happy to be firstname to residents I supervise but I think I'm an outlier on that. But very often the same individuals who would be 'Dr Lastname' to a resident/fellow they were supervising clinically, suddenly are 'Firstname' to that same resident/fellow if they start working together on a research project.

I also have been in exclusively research-intensive institutions (East Coast and West Coast).

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I have used first names with most of my supervisors and am on a first name basis with my supervisees. Dr. really only if there are patients around or it is a formal meeting, etc. It's just not something I put much thought into or find important on a day to day basis.

 

[YungPsy]

This has been said already in so many words. I would always err on the side of calling anyone I meet (with the credentials) Dr. X until told otherwise. With that said, I'm in my fourth year at a phd program (not on a coast) and I have now had 10 clinical supervisors (let alone otherwise). All of them have told me to call them by their first name. Everyone's different and I understand people’s reasons for having the opposite opinion. I truly (and perhaps unfairly) would be a bit bemused if a supervisor insisted on me calling them "Dr.". Not to say they aren't validated to do so, but just that it would be very inconsistent with my experiences so far and how I would aspire to be towards my supervisees.

 

[foreverbull]

The best supervisors I have worked with did not emphasize their titles.

From a trainee standpoint, emphasizing the "Dr." title with interns often communicate that the supervisor likely cares more about the power differential than their supervisee. As interns and externs, we are already extremely aware of the power dynamics and hierarchy that exists in the supervisor- trainees relationship, so when a supervisor emphasizes the need for the "Dr. title" it comes across as power play on the part of the supervisor even if that was not their intent. As such, they are often perceived as impersonal, uncaring and/or unapproachable. The reality is that most interns would call you Dr. XYZ anyway and the ones who do not are probably not being "intentionally" disrespectful OR if they are being intentionally disrespectful, they would do the same exact thing when they call you by your "title."

I believe that respect is not defined by the title a supervisor holds, but by how they carry themselves in that role....As a trainee who grew up in a culture where respect is highly valued, I often call supervisors by their title until they tell me otherwise, but to be honest, the boundaries and respect I have for them does not come from using their "title."

This is a fair point. That said, I don’t think using a Dr. title and personal/caring supervision are mutually exclusive—I don’t see this as black and white. For folks who “look” young and/or for women and other minorities, folks have tended to offer less respect, generally speaking, so part of using a professional title can be about representation/respect, although that isn’t the only reason, necessarily, just one I’ve thrown out before. Folks can have different intentions for choosing the title they choose (or lack thereof), so I don’t see this as an either/or scenario; people are complex.

I would imagine this naturally sorts itself out when interns work with the supervisor over time and get to experience more of the relational aspect—there are warm, approachable supervisors out there who go by Dr. So and So and power-tripping supervisors who go by first names. Lots of variability in there, for sure.

 

[MCParent]

I believe that respect is not defined by the title a supervisor holds, but by how they carry themselves in that role. You can maintain hierarchy and authority without a title because the nature of your position already secures your authority (i.e. it clarifies power differential).

One thing about this post. Not everyone understand the above. If you don't have this kind of problem it may be hard to see how anyone would, but a surprising number of graduate trainees and even undergrads think that they do or should have the same level of input into training program development as faculty, that their low-grade input on clinical issues should be met with enthusiastic praise, etc., and appear to undergo psychic shock when their input is not treated as spun gold. Same deal for a small number of trainees experiencing the chance to call their supervisor by their first name as a bizarre boundary thing. The 1% of people who behave incredibly bizarrely do have an impact on the 99% who are not weird about it.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yes, it's an unfortunate reality that there are policies which have been developed because of a small handful of problematic situations. And in the name of fairness, these must be applied evenly to all trainees.

And keep in mind that it's not just trainees who sometimes have difficulties with boundaries. Establishing set policies can be helpful for supervisors as well.

All that being said, I definitely think the way the policy or preference is communicated can notably impact the way it's received. Discussing during orientation that it's the policy of the internship for trainees to use formal titles when interacting with supervisors is different than cutting someone off mid-sentence during supervision with, "excuse me, it's Dr. Acronym."

 

[Marissa4usa]

For me, it’s always been “Dr. xxx” until told otherwise. Luckily 99% of supervisors and mentors have told me to call them by their first name. I admittedly do not understand the point that some people are making here about establishing a hierarchy and modeling professionalism. I personally have never felt confused about my role as a trainee, and the fact that at the end of the day I need to do as I’m told, even if I call my boss/supervisor/mentor by their first name. On the contrary, those who insist on being called “Dr.” tended to be worse supervisors, and I generally felt less comfortable discussing difficulties (this is purely correlational, not causal).

Now that I’m a postdoc and work with others, I make it a point to tell others to call ms by my first name, including those who I “outrank.”




Sent from my iPhone using SDN

 

[foreverbull]

For me, it’s always been “Dr. xxx” until told otherwise. Luckily 99% of supervisors and mentors have told me to call them by their first name. I admittedly do not understand the point that some people are making here about establishing a hierarchy and modeling professionalism. I personally have never felt confused about my role as a trainee, and the fact that at the end of the day I need to do as I’m told, even if I call my boss/supervisor/mentor by their first name. On the contrary, those who insist on being called “Dr.” tended to be worse supervisors, and I generally felt less comfortable discussing difficulties (this is purely correlational, not causal).

Now that I’m a postdoc and work with others, I make it a point to tell others to call ms by my first name, including those who I “outrank.”




Sent from my iPhone using SDN

Broadly, I think use of titles seems to be a cultural and generational preference. I just don't see the problem with modeling respect for those with more experience/age in our culture; I think normative American culture tends to shun titles generally, though (with titles representing a class/hierarchy to them, perhaps?), whereas other cultures tend to value showing respect those with more experience or with greater age through titles. It's the same as saying things like "sir" or "ma'am," which have started to phase out of dominant American culture, except regionally (maybe pockets of the US still do this?). My parents and grandparents were raised to say "ma'am" and "sir," but I wasn't, and neither are the generations beyond millennials. I think it's perfectly fine to offer a title of respect to folks, and it's not necessarily a sign of narcissism to ask to be referred to as such.

As I mentioned previously, yes, in some cases, folks with titles can be on a power trip (and so can those who don't ask to be referred to as "Dr."), but I don't think it's a fair assumption to generalize to everyone.

I'm just wondering why it's seen as so extreme by today's trainees for supervisors to use their title with them....is it not fair to offer a small sign of respect to those who are taking the time to train us?