The Position of Instruction: Faculty Perspectives on Forms of Address

Abstract

In this paper, we examine higher education instructor preferences for forms of address from students. We share qualitative and quantitative analysis of data from a large survey of higher education instructors, considered across a range of demographic and contextual factors. Through the lens of Positioning Theory, our work demonstrates the ways in which preferences—and the reasons for those preferences—tend to vary. Ultimately, we propose that these preferences for student forms of address are driven at least in part by the much larger social context in which we teach.

Keywords:

• Diversity
• honorifics
• positioning theory
• respect
• teacher student relationship

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the contributions of Dr. Rett McBride, who devoted expertise as a graduate student to the quantitative analysis represented in this paper. We are also grateful to the excellent and careful reviewer of this paper, whose suggestions served only to improve our work.

Ethics statement

This study was approved with a multi-institution Institutional Review Board approval housed at the home institution of the first author. Survey participants were given information about how their data would be used (as approved by IRB), and consented to volunteer for this study and that non-identifying data could be stored and shared for future research. Survey participants also agreed that they were at least 18 years of age at the time of taking the survey, and were legally allowed to give consent in their country of residence.

Notes

1 In Positioning theory, “footing” is a term used to refer to a situation where one has recognized rights, unchallenged by your interlocutor. Footing is “immanent in the way one can enter into a conversation, a game, a trial, someone else’s private affairs, unchallenged, as a right. Someone with ‘footing’ is listened to” (Harré et al. 2009, 12).

2 Six records were removed due to lack of completion, two had clearly disingenuous responses, two were from individuals who do not currently teach, and nine were from graduate students.

3 Responses grouped under “other” included disability, religion, citizenship, age, first-generation college, socio-economic status, lack of a doctorate, being a mother, part-time non-tenure track status, and politics. The large grouping under “other” was for statistical analysis purposes, as none of the included categories received more than a very small number of responses.

4 Chi-square tests were performed to examine the relationships between demographic variables and preferences (questions 1 and 2). Post-hoc analysis was performed to further determine significance by using a Bonferroni adjustment to $\propto$ in pairwise tests. Where significance was found in the results, the reasoning across specific demographic variables was further compared.

5 Note the consistency of this sentiment with key voices in Positioning Theory, when they ask, “What attributes and what historical backgrounds are germane to the ascription, refusal, assumptions, and so on, of positions in the psychological processes in which people become involved?” (Harré et al. 2009).

6 Differences between totals in different variable categories are the result of participant non-responses to specific questions. Note also that 59 respondents selected more than one category related to under-represented minority status.