APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2003-11 > 1070249755
From: "Mills" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Genealogical Theory (inc. Schools, Academics, etc.)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:36:09 -0600
Jerry, you've succinctly summed up both our situation and our prospects.
One thing surprises me, though. You're rightly pessimistic about the ability
of genealogy to make academic in-roads until it defines its "theoretical"
base, and you cite the GENTECH Model, with its definitions of some
genealogical terms, as a partial step toward providing "theory."
Admittedly, I am unabashedly and unapologetically biased <g>, but it seems
to me that the mammoth ProGen--with its many chapters on standards, evidence
analysis, processes, and principles -- provides a fundamental base of
genealogical theory. (We just couched it in readable language, as opposed to
some tomes in other fields <vbg>.) Yes, we need more monographs that probe
individual subjects in more depth. But we *have* made progress toward that
Incidentally, if I don't respond to further postings on the subject, it's
not for lack of interest. Starting tomorrow, I will be "out of touch" for a
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*
|Re: [APG] Genealogical Theory (inc. Schools, Academics, etc.) by "Mills" <>|