APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2003-12 > 1070505173


From: "Jerry Fitzpatrick" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Genealogical Theory and Journals
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:34:21 -0600
In-Reply-To: <1070462354.3fcdf5927543c@webmail.iu.edu>


You've made some interesting points here.

I agree that quantification of genealogical theory does not guarantee
academic acceptance. It might help though.

Your message also contains some of the objections I predicted. Although
it is commonly believed that "human affairs" are inherently intangible
and resistant to quantification, it's an over-generalization. Human
activities may not be predictable, but they are often quantifiable.

All knowledge is obtained from humans, documented by humans, and
interpreted by humans. We know that humans make mistakes, but that's why
multiple researchers, peer reviews, etc. are valuable. True,
quantifiable knowledge does not rely exclusively on the work of one
person. It rests on the work of many.

The point of quantification is twofold: 1) to reduce or eliminate the
bias of the documenter, and 2) to reduce or eliminate misinterpretation
by the reader. Internationalization is an important aspect of this
process.

Mathematics is exclusively a human invention and about as abstract as a
field can be. Even so, who would deny that 1 + 1 = 2? Can this
mathematical fact be discredited because humans devised mathematics?
Can it be affected by human bias or error? I think not unless you want
to delve into existential philosophy.

---
Jerry Fitzpatrick
Software Renovation Corporation

http://www.SoftwareRenovation.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:39 AM
To:
Subject: [APG] Genealogical Theory and Journals


A couple of matters I wish to address:

1)A few messages ago, someone suggested that BYU could produce a journal
that
could be a format for discussions of genealogical theory. I have
recently
discovered that BYU does in fact have a new (2002) journal titled: BYU
Family
Historian (http://familyhistory.byu.edu)(then go to 'publications') The
editorial by George Ryskamp introduces the journal's mission. This is
not a
plug for the journal, just a 'heads up' to those in the field.

2)I have been concerned about the discussion regarding quantification,
as
though this will somehow make genealogy more scholarly, more
theoretical. I
do not believe that quantification is the 'golden ticket' to academic
acceptance, though other social sciences have adopted it (or attempted
to),
seeking their own acceptance in a scientific paradigm of scholarship.


As a social anthropologist, I have to agree with ESM that human affairs
are
more 'fuzzy' than that. It seems to me that you would need to know each
individual supplying the information: their motives, their intentions as
well
as all local socio-political dynamics before assigning percentages.

Moreover, just how 'universal' would this point system be? How would it
apply
to foreign documents? Would an American be determining the probable
accuracy
of 18th century Catholic parish records from Kappelrodeck, Baden?

While I appreciate the hope that quantification would 'objectify'
the 'subjective' thus aiding in comparative studies, it seems to me that

this 'deconstruction' into quantifiable units leaves us where we
started:
examining the 'nuts and bolts' of research instead of constructing over-
arching theoretical structures.

3) It is obvious from discussions that in theory-building we need to
examine
our own cultural biases. For example, an earlier suggestion that
ancient
genealogies be scrutinized for veracity assumes that a)the people give
the
same credence and weight to the written word/document as we do; b)that
absolute accuracy of a genealogy holds as much importance to other
peoples; c)
that biological kinship is the only kinship that matters.

Again, we need to be aware that American genealogy represents one of
many
genealogical traditions around the world. Really, we should be engaging
such
discussions at an international level.

4)I think that this topic would make an excellent panel discussion at
the next
NGS Conference.


Suzanne Mullin Meissner
--
Research Associate
Department of Anthropology
Indiana University
130 Student Building
Bloomington, IN 47405



This thread: