Is "Dr. Jane Doe, PhD" redundant?

This might have a straightforward answer. I’m just curious about the construction in the subject. “MD” or “DDS” could replace “PhD,” there. On one hand, it kind of makes sense, since it clarifies what kind of doctor. But on the other, “Jane Doe, PhD” has just as much information. Writing it out highlights the silliness: “Doctor Jane Doe, Medical Doctor.”

Opinions? Is there an official answer? Do specific academies opine?

Yes, it’s redundant.

Thank you for clarifying red red salamander.

Hey, I don’t want to hear anything outta you, human wise wise.

No, of course not, it isn’t.

Dr. Jane Doe wants you do know she is not a rug doctor, a lawn doctor, or heaven forbid, a physician.

It’s not redundant if Jane Doe, PhD has got another doctorate that did not come with a postnominal title.

And what doctorate does not come with postnomials? Hint they all do.

^ agree with this. If she’s “just” a doctor, it’s redundant. If she’s got anything else beyond an MD, there’s no problem.

“The Dr.? That’s short for Drusilla; I was named after my grandmother. But I usually go by Jane, my middle name. By an amazing coincidence, there’s another doctor on staff here named Daphne Jane Doe and she uses her middle name also. So we started calling ourselves Da. Jane Doe and Dr. Jane Doe to avoid any confusion.”

You use the “Dr.” in the same circumstances you would use “Ms.” For instance, if you’re making a list of people and everyone has “Mr.” or “Ms.” in front of their names, then the one with the PhD will start with “Dr.”

“Jane Doe, PhD” has all of the required information but it doesn’t have the respect afforded by the title “Doctor”. The information is basically there twice, but for different reasons. So no, in my opinion it is not redundant.

Yes, it’s redundant. Speaking as someone who has one, no one with a Ph.D. would list themselves that way unless they wanted to look like a complete fool to their colleagues. Adding “Dr.” doesn’t get you any more respect except from those who are ignorant of the convention.

Jane Doe, Ph.D. is completely sufficient. You would lose respect, rather than gain it, by adding “Dr.”

That may be true for US doctorates but not worldwide. Jane Doe may have picked up a PhD in the US, a Dr. rer. silv. in Germany and a *Dr. med. vet. *in Austria and would, in this case, be Dr. Dr. Jane Doe, PhD.

Yes, it’s redundant. It reminds me of the credits on the Bill Cosby Show, where he was listed like that only E.D., not PhD, and made me laugh every week.

Well I bow to your direct experience. I was just thinking that one is a title and the other is a qualification and they each serve a different purpose even if they are carrying the same information. (The qualification giving the reason for the title without being able to replace the title itself.)

Edit: This agrees with you that it is redundant.

I agree. Only use Dr. for medical degrees, etc.

So Jane Doe should be referred to, formally, as “Ms. Jane Doe”?

This may work in North America but in Europe, PhD and other advanced degree holders get more respect. Dr. Jane Doe is the appropriate form of address for these non-medical degree holders.

Dr. morgensd

I had a patient once whose name was printed on his checks:
Dr. So and So,DPM, Podiatrist ret.
Mentioned it three times. Insisted that I call him “Doctor” but would only call me by my first name. What an ego.

What idiot in their right mind wold rather see “Bob” about an embarrassing rash rather than “Dr. Bob”?!?!