APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2003-11 > 1070252425
From: "Jerry Fitzpatrick" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Genealogical Theory (inc. Schools, Academics, etc.)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:21:54 -0600
Thanks Elizabeth. I agree that ProGen is a big step in the direction of
genealogical theory. In fact, I've studied several chapters to help me
understand some of the shortcomings I perceive in the GENTECH model.
Even though I admire the knowledge embodied in ProGen, in some areas it
is still more philosophical than quantitative (an observation, not a
Software Renovation Corporation
From: Mills [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] Genealogical Theory (inc. Schools, Academics, etc.)
Jerry, you've succinctly summed up both our situation and our prospects.
One thing surprises me, though. You're rightly pessimistic about the
of genealogy to make academic in-roads until it defines its
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
to me that the mammoth ProGen--with its many chapters on standards,
analysis, processes, and principles -- provides a fundamental base of
genealogical theory. (We just couched it in readable language, as
some tomes in other fields <vbg>.) Yes, we need more monographs that
individual subjects in more depth. But we *have* made progress toward
Incidentally, if I don't respond to further postings on the subject,
not for lack of interest. Starting tomorrow, I will be "out of touch"
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 "Jerry Fitzpatrick" <>|