APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2003-11 > 1069033051


From: Katherine Flynn <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Genealogical Theory
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:37:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <00c501c3aca0$4e3b7490$16763e44@win2000a141573>


Dear Donn,

In my field of chemistry the reference style you
propose is completely unacceptable. The "ACS Style
Guide" is very clear on proper citation. ALL authors
are to be listed along with complete pagination. This
covers over 150 publications by the American Chemical
Society.

One of the most prestigious scientific journals n the
world is "Nature" and its guide for references can be
found at
http://www.nature.com/nature/submit/gta/index.html#5.4

Again, the requirements are quite stringent.

Best regards,
Kathy Flynn


--- Mills <> wrote:
> Donn wrote:
>
> > It seems today as if the theoretical underpinnings
> of genealogy will be
> found
> > not only in history, paleography and diplomatics,
> where its classical
> roots
> > lay, but also in such diverse disciplines as
> anthropology, molecular
> biology
> > or cellular biochemistry and information theory,
> to say nothign of
> psychology
> > and sociology (social communications) or
> philosophy (logic).
> >
> > Regarding citations of published works: the more
> we come to depend on
> > science for our underpinnings, the more
> appropriate that we use the
> > scientific citation style--the
> parentheses-enclosed surname of the lead
> > author and publication date, with a bibliography
> of works cited at the
> > end--rather than the less-informative humanities
> style of numeral
> > references to foot or end notes. . . . for
> published works, it is the
> > the reputation of the principal researcher and the
> timeliness of the
> > research that gives weight to a cited assertion,
> rather than a description
> > of the nature and provenance of its source.
>
> Donn, you had me squarely in your camp throughout
> the first part of your
> discourse -- right down to the part where you called
> for in-text citation of
> sources and a general bibliography at the end <g>.
> It was a glorious day for
> genealogy when the journals abandoned those
> parenthetical citations that
> clutter up text and cause casual genealogists to
> ignore citations
> completely, swearing that their cousins would be
> turned off by the
> "trappings of a doctoral dissertation."
>
> Your last comment, about the validity of information
> depending upon the
> reputation of the principal researcher and the
> "timeliness" of the research,
> also points to major differences between our field
> and formal, academic,
> scientific research -- for two reasons:
>
> 1. "Timeliness" -- as it is construed in the
> fast-popping world of
> scientific research -- and historical research,
> which typically takes years
> to develop and years more to get published, aren't
> particularly compatible
> bedfellows!
>
> 2. Deciding the validity of evidence on the basis of
> who the "lead writer"
> may be feasible in scientific research, where
> publications are extensively
> peer reviewed, where practitioners typically hold
> advanced degrees in that
> particular field, where they are paid to conduct
> advanced research in a very
> narrow specialty, and where expertise depends upon
> staying abreast of
> everything written on that very narrow specialty.
>
> However, genealogy is still light-years away from
> that exalted state. (A)
> Most of what appears in print in the name of
> genealogy is not peer-reviewed
> at all. (B) It is a rare practitioner of genealogy
> who holds even an
> undergraduate degree. (C) Professional genealogists,
> as a rule, work on many
> families, they are paid only for work on those
> families, and once they
> finish a client project they may never work on that
> family again. Staying
> abreast of everything written on each of those
> families -- or on any
> client's family -- is out of the question. Even
> reading everything published
> on a family before fulfilling a client commission is
> out of the question.
> (D) The vast majority of individuals "doing
> genealogy" lack formal training
> and are in no way equipped to decide how much
> "weight" to put on a piece of
> genealogical evidence when the source citation is
> only (Jones, 1999).
>
> Donn, I love you dearly and I wish I had your smarts
> in so many different
> intellectual fields. But if we encourage
> genealogists to cite sources as
> (Jones, 1999) and to trust whoever's name is most
> often touted as the great
> guru of Jones research, then 999,000 out a million
> will not make your
> advanced level of judgment. Yes, you did say that
> notes should still be used
> for original resources. But the rank and file will
> not make that
> distinction. They will see in-text citation of
> author-date and a general
> list of sources at the end, and that's what they'll
> do. The cause of sound,
> reliable, genealogical research would be set back to
> where it was decades
> ago!
>
> Fearfully yours,
> Elizabeth
>
> ---------
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> Author, *Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the
> Family Historian*
> Editor/Author, *Professional Genealogy: A Manual for
> Researchers,
> Writers, Editors, Lecturers, and Librarians*
>
>
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
> http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html
>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

This thread: