Why are you a researcher and not a scientist?

February 16, 2018 6:54 AM

Scientists of Metafilter (and those who study them): Why do scientists mostly call themselves researchers instead of calling themselves scientists? Why do you?
posted by clawsoon to Writing & Language (28 answers total)

Scientist is a general term and doesn't carry very much meaning. Most who do science will respond with more specificity when asked what they do. For example, instead of I'm a Scientist, someone will say I'm a physicist / chemist / microbiologist, or even better, statistical physicist / analytical chemist / experimental virologist, etc. Similar to how no physician ever says "I'm a Doctor" to anyone out of elementary school -they say I'm a primary care physician, or nephrologist, or hospitalist, or radiation oncologist, etc, etc. I've never heard someone who does science call themselves a researcher.
posted by everythings_interrelated at 7:02 AM on February 16, 2018 [4 favorites]

Best answer: At my university we have scientists who are employed as research scientists or technicians. Research scientists are typically more senior (many of them have PhDs and work in academic labs alongside the lead professor) and they lead the direction of a project. That is, they spend the most of their time analyzing data, writing up results, and thinking critically about that project. That is, doing research. Technicians tend to be very junior (many have just graduated with their BS) and are basically specialized hourly staff doing the scientific equivalent of flipping burgers. If they are planning to go to graduate school or pursue a research career, they may be mentored by a research scientist and slowly take the lead on certain aspects of the project. If that isn't the case, though, the research scientist is telling them exactly what to do.

Research scientists and technicians are both scientists, but the knowledge and understanding that come along with the role are very different. I would suspect that is why researcher is the preferred descriptor, rather than scientist. Though above all I would agree with everythings_interrelated--in real life I would never describe myself as a researcher or a scientist. I would say I'm a microbiologist. If I was being more specific, I would say I'm a microbial ecologist studying in X question in Y system.
posted by lucy.jakobs at 7:22 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Best answer: I say I’m a doctor! It’s probably regional, in the UK “doctor” is a full job title and specifying the precise area I work in is much more detail than the average interaction requires. It would totally derail the conversation. (Of course if I was speaking to a patient I’d explain my seniority and specialisation so they knew who they were seeing, but for general chitchat with other nursery mums I’m just a doctor).

I think the difference between “scientist” and “researcher” is that scientist isn’t a job title. It’s too broad. I don’t think all people who work in science describe themselves as researchers either - it’s generally doctoral students and post-docs IME. Anyone more senior would describe their job in more detail: industrial chemist, “work in the pharmaceutical industry”, lecturer in Biology at University X, physicist, civil engineer, mathematician.

And just to complicate things even further, most of the people I know in “researcher” jobs are not scientists at all, they do background research for media or other organisations...
posted by tinkletown at 7:23 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Best answer: In many academic places, scientist is a specific and kind of unusual job title (It's usually someone at the Ph.D. level who has some independence in grant-writing, etc., but whose focus isn't teaching). But everyone doing science is doing research. I work in a scientific lab that is used by everyone from high schoolers doing an independent study to folks with advanced degrees who have been in industry, government labs, or academia for many years. When describing them collectively, I usually call them "researchers". (Calling them "scientists" would also not be strictly accurate since I have some people who are not in a scientific field, but are doing other kinds of research.)

For myself, I only describe myself as a scientist if I am talking to kids. To someone else in academia I'd probably say my title (which has the word "research" in it) and department. To a non-academic adult without a science background, I'd probably describe what I do. So I don't describe myself as a researcher, because it is so vague, but I do use it to describe others.
posted by tchemgrrl at 7:26 AM on February 16, 2018

Best answer: For what it's worth, I am a scientist of Metafilter and I call myself a scientist. (Or really, I call myself an ecologist, or a botanist, or a professor, depending on the context.)

When I've been 'researcher' in the past, it's because that was my actual job title ('postdoctoral researcher', 'graduate research assistant'). And I still didn't really refer to myself that way except on my CV.
posted by pemberkins at 7:29 AM on February 16, 2018 [3 favorites]

I am not a researcher or a scientist - I am a geologist or environmental consultant, depending on who I'm talking to. I have colleagues with the title Scientist, and they are typically the people with a background in ecology / plant science / etc. who are not geologists or engineers (which is what the majority of my company is). But they would probably state their job as environmental scientist / environmental consultant to most people.
posted by DoubleLune at 7:34 AM on February 16, 2018

Nonacademics often treat the use of academic titles or specifically academic roles like "scientist" as proclaiming that you're better than them. I'm just a social science type myself, but I would never, ever call myself a scientist off campus because I don't particularly want to be treated like a poindexter with a swole head. I don't even call myself a researcher; my usual response off-campus to "What do you do?" is "I work at the university."
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:36 AM on February 16, 2018 [3 favorites]

I used "biologist" on a not-job-related form recently because it's broad enough to cover most jobs I might do for a while. My current job title includes "research assistant", I use it with other folks in my org who know where that fits in the hierarchy. Scientist is so vague as to be useless unless it's a job title in context.

In conversation, I've used ecologist, forest ecologist, microbial ecologist, mycologist, plant pathologist, and lab manager to describe different work I've done to different people. I don't think I've called myself a researcher, I say "I study....." Researcher on it's own doesn't say much useful about what I do.
posted by momus_window at 7:43 AM on February 16, 2018

I don't make this distinction, verbally/socially.
posted by Dashy at 7:55 AM on February 16, 2018

My usual answer to this question takes explaining to anyone who isn't an academic ("I'm a postdoc." "What's a postdoc?").

If I don't want to do that, it's usually "vision scientist" if I'm talking to applied people (engineers), or sometimes "perception researcher" if I'm talking to a more general audience. But my field is commonly called vision science, so the former makes sense.
posted by Making You Bored For Science at 7:56 AM on February 16, 2018

That's interesting, I think of "researcher" and "scientist" as being non-interchangeable job titles. I know archaeology researchers, and historical researchers, and I know scientists who aren't doing research.
posted by aimedwander at 8:03 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Best answer: It’s context dependent. I call myself ‘scientist’ on my MeFi profile. It’s true and it’s also kind of amusing to me for reasons that are hard to articulate. Part of it is that it’s not really saying much, as others have pointed out. Part of it is that scene in Half Baked where he keeps awkwardly addressing people working at the lab like ‘thanks, scentist!’

In a more professional context, I usually go with ‘research scientist’ because that is a key term with wide currency.

‘Researcher’ has its own problems when used alone, and I never use it that way. Some lay people think it means looking things up, like if you do research for your high school project at the library. I do that too of course, but it’s not really the point.

Unless I know I’m talking to academics, I usually don’t get too specific about my field, because my work is interdisciplinary mathematical biology, but actually not what is usually though of as ‘mathematical biology’, and I’m also sort of a ecologist, and... gah.

So ‘(research) scientist’ is what I usually go with, for some mix of simplicity and clarity.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Not all scientists are researchers. In fact, a lot of them aren't. As a chemist, I've done research, development, quality control, writing, sample collection....
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 8:11 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Best answer: My husband refers to himself as a researcher. He does this because he is an academic scientist, but has no teaching load. So where he works there are “researchers” and there are “professors,” the latter having both research and teaching components to their work. There isn’t really a status distinction, it’s more about function.

“Scientist” is too vague, and the actual discipline is reserved for people who have really asked about it. “Researcher is for forms, or for casual conversation.
posted by ohio at 8:15 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

(Also is there a MeFi scientist club? Should we start one? Sometimes we can smell our own but it might be nice to have a little hang out area)
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:16 AM on February 16, 2018 [6 favorites]

I do call myself a scientist, especially to people who aren't familiar with the intimate details of how research gets done in academia, government, or industry. More information than "scientist" seems like overkill unless they ask for it. To people who I suspect know the ins and outs of research, I say I'm a molecular biologist.
posted by Knowyournuts at 8:34 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Best answer: I have a science background and currently work in science communication. I usually say "researchers" in my articles, especially when speaking about large groups, because it's a more general, inclusive term that includes the many people doing research (in the doing scientific experiments and publishing papers sense) who aren't scientists: medical doctors, grad students, lab techs, research associates, etc.

At least around here, scientist is a very specific job title which is only used for the PhD-holding person who is in charge of the lab (in my field, always the senior author on publications). MDs who do research are often called clinician scientists though, especially if they also have a PhD and/or supervise a research team.
posted by randomnity at 8:40 AM on February 16, 2018 [3 favorites]

Response by poster: Now that I think about this more, I think I may have mixed up people describing themselves with people describing a group of others. I'll see or hear "researchers on the project" much more often than "scientists on the project", and your answers have clarified why. Thanks!
posted by clawsoon at 8:44 AM on February 16, 2018

Randomnity has a very good point. ‘Researchers at X university’ is super common in science journalism, but I’d not say it’s the main way scientists refer to themselves. But that may be the source of the apparent disconnect OP is talking about.

(On preview: one minute too late. Fun question though, thanks!)
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:45 AM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: I think I've also been noticing job titles; there are a lot of them with "researcher" in the name, even when it seems to a layperson that "scientist" would fit just as well.
posted by clawsoon at 8:47 AM on February 16, 2018

I worked for a big contractor on NASA projects for many years. Although my job title was Computer Scientist, I was really a software engineer. Some of our civil-servant overlords had the job title Researcher.
posted by Rash at 10:48 AM on February 16, 2018

None of us wore white lab coats, however. Isn't that required, to actually be considered a scientist?
posted by Rash at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2018

My business card says "Senior Research Scientist".
posted by 445supermag at 12:01 PM on February 16, 2018

I'm a postdoctoral research associate, but if someone outside of academia asks what my job is, I usually say I'm a scientist who studies primates. I like being able to broaden people's ideas of who is a scientist, especially when talking to non-scientists. Also, my field (anthropology) has researchers who study anthropology from a more humanistic perspective and a scientific perspective. I want to make it clear that I use science in my research.
posted by ChuraChura at 12:36 PM on February 16, 2018 [2 favorites]

Not all scientists work in research full time, although all have some experience with and background in it. A lot do things like survey and assessment or management of natural systems or work with engineers on building things or review permit applications, review grant applications, teach students, teach the public etc. A lot of people do a little of everything. A researcher, to me, is someone doing largely self directed/ pure work, like the head of a research program or a PI OR someone working full time for one of those programs.

In general science is split into
Research
Pure research
Applied research
Applied (building stuff)
Management
Assessment and Review/ Oversight
Outreach and Education

So take the flu vaccine. You have people researching the flu virus itself on a very fundamental level: what is it, where does it come from, how does it work, how do we kill it? You have people working on vaccines at the same level. People are in the field tracking viruses and their spread, collecting data and sending it to be analyzed. You have people taking that work and creating tailored annual vaccines. You have people evalutaing the success of the creation of the annual vaccines and making suggestions on improvements. You have people looking at meta trends. You have people creating the outreach materials and press releases to educate regulatory bodies, the legislature, medical providers and the public. You have the regulatory body overseeing the vaccine safety programs. Etc. A lot of those people aren't doing research but are an integral part of the process and overall goal of the program.

You'll notice there are a lot more people not doing research typically. Being a full time researcher is quite hard and so there is some pride associated with it. Otoh, a lot of people hate research and are very happy to work in the rest of the associated fields so it's not really a huge deal to anyone except researchers!
posted by fshgrl at 2:27 PM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

Now I'm wondering what I actually usually say, and I'm not entirely sure!

I feel like I might use "researcher" (or more likely "research scientist" or "researcher in biochemistry" or I might just say I do "biochemistry research") in contexts where I want to emphasize the fact that all I do is research. People unconnected to academia don't necessarily really know what a postdoc is, and they may assume that a grad student is taking classes or TAing a lot (neither of which was the case later in my PhD.)

If I'm focused more on the topic of what I do, I might describe myself as a scientist or research scientist to a complete stranger (like a taxi driver), but I suspect that I almost always qualify it immediately with "I do biochemistry research" or simply start off with "I am a biochemist." However, emphasizing the "scientist" bit can be something of a conscious decision: I really don't look like the egghead stereotype that GCU Sweet and Full of Grace invokes, and like Chura Chura, I'd like people to stop automatically assuming scientists are old white men in labcoats.

Within academia and particularly within scientific contexts, "I'm a biochemistry postdoc" suffices.
posted by ubersturm at 6:03 PM on February 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

I generally say I'm a biologist, and elaborate if someone expresses interest. But I also use "researcher" fairly often with the public, to impress the idea that my work could lead to positive change in their community.
posted by scrubjay at 7:20 PM on February 16, 2018

There's a hesitance with the government scientists I work with/have met to call themselves scientists, because they may not feel like the work they're doing meets the standards of science.

On the flip side of this, I was once...bemused to learn that a local researcher/university professor was not following very stringent calibration procedure (for the record, where possible, everything should be calibrated/traced back to NIST with documentation to prove it) because it was "just for research", instead of for regulatory purposes.

One of the grizzled chemists at my lab would confidently declare that "We don't do science here!". It would have looked like science to most people. To flip that around again, when I was in private industry, one of the labs we contracted analysis with got huge fines for not doing analysis properly.

I sometimes comment to people that I do science-adjacent work. One can do a lot of analysis, testing, etc. without necessarily doing science. But then I might work on something that IS testing assumptions and drawing conclusions that later go into a report for public consumption.

Some people who might perform science (the whole process) with 5% of their work time may not feel like calling themselves scientists.
posted by Strudel at 7:36 PM on February 16, 2018