Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I mainly associate scholar with scholarship. But what's its etymological origin? On scientific websites both scholar and scientist seem to be used with the same meaning; A graduate working actively on a scientific topic. Is it a AE/BE thing or does scholar imply the graduate is doing a phd/postdoctoral degree or gets financial aid (scholarship).

Also, how do these terms relate to researcher? You don't need an academic degree to be a researcher, e.g. a journalist does research before writing an article. But in my opinion researcher also often implies someone has an academic degree. Is this right?

share|improve this question
You have a lot of questions here. Do you think you can pare them down to get better answers? –  simchona Aug 7 '11 at 20:49
@simchona im asking for correct context of scholar/scientist/researcher as they are used in a synonymous way imo. Where are there a lot of questions? Its one, the rest are my assumptions and hints that might play a role and may be considered when writing a answer... –  Hauser Aug 7 '11 at 21:04
You ask for the etymology of "scholar", what "scientist" implies, how "scientist" and "scholar" and "researcher" relate, and what a "researcher" is. –  simchona Aug 7 '11 at 21:07
@simchona Of course? As all these questions contribute to the differentiation of these terms as thursagen answer shows.It makes only sense TO ME to bundle these sub-nearly-questions in one complete question instead of making 5 separate ones probably yielding no votes and answers as uninteresting.Otherwise you say its ok to make for every etymological origin/word meaning question a thread here instead of simply looking it up in a dictionary?Im ONLY asking on usage in context, necessarily imho the answer on this single question will regard all my sub questions and more to yield the best answer. –  Hauser Aug 7 '11 at 21:47
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

"Scientist" is used when referring specifically to a person who is an expert in a science, especially physical or natural sciences.

"Scholar" is more broad, and can be used generally for anyone who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

"Scholar" isn't used for sciences (chemistry, geography), but can be used for History, Language, etc. Examples of this are:

Geography scholar?/Wrong.
Language scholar - Yes.
Psychology scholar - Wrong.(Psychology is a science)
Greek scholar - Correct.

Thus, "scholar" is only used for someone who is an expert at a particular subject, when the subject is not a science.

An additional meaning of "scholar" is:

a student who has been awarded a scholarship.

Thus, yes, "scholar" can also be used when referring to students who have received scholarships, as you asked.

Your second question below:

A "researcher" implies someone who is doing scientific research specifically as a vocation e.g. I am a researcher at Harvard University. If someone like a journalist was just doing research for an article, he wouldn't be referred to as a researcher, but rather as "A journalist researching".

A "researcher" could be a scientist, or a scholar. A Biblical scholar could be a researcher at a seminary. A chemist could be a researcher at a pharmacist. But when referring to the person, it doesn't matter if he/she is a scientist or a scholar, just use "researcher".

share|improve this answer
Someone please comment on why this was down-voted? –  Thursagen Aug 7 '11 at 21:28
Maybe someone disagreed with your originally cursory definitions? (It wasn't me) –  simchona Aug 7 '11 at 21:31
Cursory definitions? as in what? –  Thursagen Aug 7 '11 at 21:34
Perhaps someone thinks "geography scholar", "chemistry scholar", etc. are OK? –  GEdgar Aug 7 '11 at 23:59
'Scholar' certainly is used for someone outside of the humanities (check the definition you linked to). 'Scholar' standing by itself does have the connotation of reading quite a bit, which is not the scientist's primary source of knowledge. See the following Google ngram comparing 'history' and 'psychology'. 'History' wins, but 'psychology' actually has a showing (see examples there to confirm). –  Mitch Aug 8 '11 at 16:49
show 6 more comments

Scholar: from the Ancient Greek scoulari; noun for "skeptic".

share|improve this answer
add comment

Theoretical sciences require the scientist to be a scholar. Applied sciences do not. For example, the famous physics lectures by Richard Feynman require being a scholar to grasp them. Science and art were only separated in our culture in the late 1800s. Prior to that it was a well known career description, including in the U.S., to be an artist-engineer. John Wesley Powell still fit that description after the Civil War. Farther back, for example, Leonardo Da Vinci was formally an artist-engineer. Today, in the U.S. there is a foolish conceit that there can no more "Renaissance Men"...

share|improve this answer
This is complete rubbish. –  TheMathemagician Jan 10 at 17:27
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.