APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2001-04 > 0988049495


From: "Helen Leary" <>
Subject: [APG] PC Genealogy
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:11:35 -0400


This message addresses Cynthia Hofmeister's posting about re-writing her
certification application. I'm answering here because I suspect there may be
others whose confidence has been shaken by the grammar and usage discussions
(which, in my opinion are threatening to get entirely out of hand). My
comments are not addressed to Cynthia specifically--they are addressed to
anybody who is considering certification.

1. The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Salt Lake City: Ancestry.com,
2000) says, under "Compilation Standards":
"The writing is clear. Grammar, spelling, usage, and punctuation follow the
rules of standard English; organization is logical and comprehensible; and
the writing style is straightforward, precise, and reasonably free from
unintelligible abbreviations, undefined jargon, malapropisms**, casual
chitchat, and typographical errors." (Standard 35, p. 13). I do not see
anything in that standard that calls for political correctness, convoluted
sentence structure, or long words used for their own sake. Our branch of
history values the ability to communicate--directly and simply--(a) the
information we found in the records, cited to the record we found it in; and
(b) our understanding of how that information answers our genealogical
questions.
[**Malapropism--unintentional use of the wrong, same-sounding word. In
almost all cases, the misuse is caused by attempts to use a long "erudite"
word whose meaning is only vaguely understood.]

2. The BCG Application Guide (Washington: BCG, 2000 and [forthcoming 2d ed.
2001]) includes the following:
"NOTE: Be sure to select reports for your portfolio that do not need to be
re-researched, re-documented, or re-formatted before being submitted to BCG.
Each report should be <exactly> as it was when sent to the person or agency
who authorized the work." (p. 6)

3. I was president of BCG for some seven years so am familiar with its
judging procedures and history. I've never heard of an applicant being
turned down for lapses in writing style, although I understand that judges
do point out serious or consistent typographical errors (which indicate a
certain degree of carelessness and lack of adequate proofreading). Only if
one's writing style (overly convoluted or tongue-tied in its simplicity)
interferes with the applicant's ability to communicate clearly would style
be considered as <one> of the causes for a judge to recommend disapproval of
the portfolio. (Among the other causes for disapproval of that same
portfolio might be: (a) failing to cite, fully and accurately, the source(s)
for each statement of genealogical "fact"; (b) failing to follow BCG's or
the client's instructions--submitting five client reports when only two are
required, for example, or searching 1850s records for an 1870 marriage; (c)
misinterpreting records--speculating that a testator had one more child who
wasn't named in his list of "all my children," for example; (d) inability to
read handwritten records; and so forth ) In short, certification is awarded
for <genealogical competence>, not for elegant writing style. Potential
applicants for certification should not confuse the standards for
publication of one's work in a scholarly journal with standards for writing
client reports and other types of compilations (or for simply answering the
questions asked in the Guide).

4. Everybody is nervous when they apply for certification. It's a big step
and a valuable one. But nobody should be paralyzed with fear--PERFECTION IS
NOT REQUIRED (pardon the shout, but some things really do need to be
shouted). The BCG judges are your fellow genealogists--all of them were once
beginners and learned their skills step-by-step over time. All of them had
to prepare their own applications and went through what you are experiencing
now (most of them recall the experience vividly). And certification did NOT
turn them into ferocious ogres, lying in wait to chew each unwary applicant
into little pieces. The judges' comments and grades are designed to help the
applicant (whether or not the portfolio is approved); they are not intended
to wound sensibilities or destroy self-confidence.

5. To each of you who is now preparing an application portfolio, and to each
of you who has done so in the past--those who achieved certification and
those who didn't--I say this: I admire, without any qualification
whatsoever, your courage and your perseverance.

Helen F. M. Leary, CG, CGL, FASG
---------------------------------------------
Certified Genealogist and Certified Genealogical Lecturer, and the related
identifying initials are the property of the Board for Certification of
Genealogists and used here under license.

This thread: