Interesting comments so far, which largely reflect a mixture of: (i) retrospective views on how we got here; (ii) subjective interpretation of the domain focus and associated skills; and (ii) recognition of the different interactions we each face with what might be broadly termed ‘clients’.

Our views are likely shaped by our experiences, and these will differ according to the domain in which we operate. Our concerns, or lack thereof, over the naming of what we do, is driven by personal circumstances – in some instance this may be stronger than the abstract debate of taxonomy. I am inclined therefore to agree with Collins: “leave the mother alone … Just create your own name” – horses for courses, as it were.

However, Donald produces a thoughtful document that I suggest points to one thing we all agree on: there is an issue for some (maybe not all) over recognition, or perhaps a matter of clearer identification of what we are, what we do, and therefore how we might be seen/treated by others. I am acutely aware of this within medicine, where there is typically only one ‘box’ in which we are placed, even though one may use various labels from ‘statistician’, ‘biostatistician’, ‘medical statistician’, to those with more focus, such as ‘trials statistician’, statistical geneticist’, ‘statistical epidemiologist’, or even ‘bioinformatician’ (within medicine, there are often treated synonymously).

In academia, we are increasingly encouraged (though rarely rewarded) for multidisciplinary working, so it is perhaps understandable if we face a lack of clarity around (labelled) identify with respect to external views. If you are not experiencing any such challenge, there is no problem. But it can be different in different contexts. My experience within medicine reveals a poor comprehension of the various skill sets that fall under the umbrella of ‘data scientist’. I therefore embrace the point Donald makes about ‘sell’ and ‘outward facing’ issues of communicating what we each do. 

I too believe that we should let evolution run its course in terms of what terminology becomes preferred and mainstream, but for this to happen, it will involve individuals or groups adapting to their circumstances. I am not a statistician, despite being labelled as one, and it therefore suits me to claim the title ‘data scientist’. But no one must feel compelled to change how they present themselves – this is down to personal choice. I suspect some groups will choose to make changes, where greater clarity (or some might say ‘spin’) becomes operationally important. None of these changes reflect less regard for the importance and value of statistics; indeed, only the opposite – the issue (for some) is more about gaining purchase on how we are seen and thus engaged with, than trying to redefine ourselves. 

Mark

You may leave the list at any time by sending the command

SIGNOFF allstat

to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.