tim | Too much information?

Poll #2586

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 21

Suppose you are a researcher and you collaborate with your husband, wife, domestic partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, lover, mistress, gigolo, inamorat{o|a}, sweetie, fuckbuddy, or baby mama. Suppose you are giving an academic talk. Which of the following do you consider reasonable ways to refer to your joint work with your collaborator (named, say, Dana Q. Zygomorphism), when used more than once in the same talk?

View Answers

"In work with my wife..."
3 (14.3%)

"In work with my husband..."
3 (14.3%)

"In work with Dr. Zygomorphism..."
16 (76.2%)

"In work with {Mr.|Ms.} Zygomorphism..."
6 (28.6%)

"In work with Zygomorphism..."
11 (52.4%)

"In work with Dana..."
18 (85.7%)

"In work with my collaborator..." [when credit is given by name in a slide]
17 (81.0%)

Something else
2 (9.5%)

None of the above.
0 (0.0%)

Which of the following phrases would you consider unprofessional to use one or more times during an academic talk (assuming it was true)?

View Answers

"In work with my wife..." [speaker is male]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my husband..." [speaker is female]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my wife..." [speaker is female]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my husband..." [speaker is male]
13 (68.4%)

"In work with my partner..."
10 (52.6%)

"In work with my significant other..."
14 (73.7%)

"In work with my boyfriend..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my girlfriend..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my girlfriend's other boyfriend..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my friend with benefits..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my gay lover..."
17 (89.5%)

"In work with the mother of my children..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with the person with whom I have sexual intercourse on a regular basis..."
18 (94.7%)

"In work with my partner in a full-time BDSM relationship..."
17 (89.5%)

"In work with your mom..."
13 (68.4%)

None of the above
0 (0.0%)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If the audience is already familiar with your partner, your relationship with them, and with you and your partner as academics (both jointly and separately), then it's fine to introduce them as your "wife/husband/boyfriend/..." and then refer to them by name thereafter. I've been in situations where that'd be acceptable, but it definitely requires the audience's independent awareness of your partner as an upstanding academic in their own right. Without that, referring to them by anything other than their name is to minimize their involvement--- which can be appropriate if they truly are a "collaborator". Referring to them by any non-work relationship is demeaning, and a horrific throwback to the Victorian era where women's involvement in science had to be "blessed" by some male superior.

As for the format of using names, I generally disapprove of using common titles (Mr, Ms, Mrs, Miss,...) in any context that isn't strictly formal. I'm fine with military titles, but they wouldn't feel appropriate in an academic setting. Religious and noble titles should be used as a proper sign of respect, but they are rather rare these days. In general, the first time you introduce a name to the discussion you should give both first and last name so that people know who you're talking about (this can be elided in casual discussions). And after that, in-group members should be called by their first name, and out-group members by their last name. ...Then again, I've studied far too much Japanese and I'm fond of their attitudes towards names.

Without that, referring to them by anything other than their name is to minimize their involvement--- which can be appropriate if they truly are a "collaborator". Referring to them by any non-work relationship is demeaning, and a horrific throwback to the Victorian era where women's involvement in science had to be "blessed" by some male superior.

Yeah, that gets at exactly why I posted this poll. The speaker in question definitely had no basis to assume that anyone there was any more familiar with his wife's work than with his own, and I don't think he even *was* assuming so.

I added the Dr./Ms./whatever options mostly just to pad things out :-)

I'd extend it to include non-sexual relationships as well. Referring to a collaborator or coauthor repeatedly during a talk as "my neighbor", "the guy I eat lunch next to", "my raquetball partner", etc are all just as unprofessional. If it's not a work relationship then it's not relevant to the work being presented IMO, sex or no. The sexual implications just add rudeness on top of the unprofessionalism.

(Though now I'm wondering about situations where the sexual relationship is relevant to the work being presented... :)

Though now I'm wondering about situations where the sexual relationship is relevant to the work being presented... :)

Like participant-observer ethnography (as the kids are calling it these days).

Too much information?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject