APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2009-05 > 1241829868
From: Jeanette Daniels <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Genealogical Education (was Profession and "ConsumerProtection")
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
I agree with your ideas and comparisons with other specialties. I see genealogy as a separate field of study. When I worked at Salt Lake Community College, our program was the Genealogy Department. We used the history department when needed so that our students could minor in history along with the genealogical research major. We left Salt Lake Community College in 2005 and expanded our program. A genealogy program at the college and university level should not be a "glorified" history program.
If we create these programs with professional genealogists as the foundation, that is what is needed to make these programs great. If watered down by history Ph.Ds, the genealogical research components gets lost and the degree is truly a history degree instead. When applying for accreditations, it would be as a new specialty rather than trying to imitate what is already there. Nursing and other medically related specialties do co-exist at institutions of higher learning. Genealogy, if developed and presented innovatively, could also co-exist in the same way. I have assumed that everyone knows that I am with Heritage Genealogical College.
The other genealogy certificate and degreed programs that I mentioned a while back in another post are all unique with their own interpretations of what is necessary for students. I believe that everyone is on the right path with these programs. Genealogy should not be under the history department and if it takes going through Continuing Ed departments to get a foot in the door - Great!
From: Kathy <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 5:08:44 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] Genealogical Education (was Profession and "Consumer Protection")
> the educational qualifications you propose for the profession will
> not be practically attainable until family history is accepted by the
> *traditional* academic system as a form of history equal to all
I don't see why it's necessary that genealogy be seen as a form of
anything else, instead of as a discipline of its own.
> To generate a new and large generation of professional researchers,
> academically trained in programs that are publicly respected, will
> require three things: ... (3) a significantly large cadre of
> genealogists whose academic background meets the standards required
> for all others who teach history in respected programs--which
> essentially means a Ph.D. in history
Again, this presumes that genealogy be perceived as a stepchild of
history. While it certainly has affinities with history, it also has
affinities with other disciplines. As Larry has suggested, it may be
time to think of more innovative ways of blazing a path into the
> We are caught in not one but two Catch-22s:
> (2) trying to integrate genealogy into the nation's academic system
> without a sufficiently large cadre of genealogical educators holding
> the required academic degrees.
It's a limitation at this point, but not really a Catch-22, and
certainly not insurmountable. Many other developing disciplines have
dealt with it. Only a few short decades ago, the faculty at schools of
library science were largely those with masters degrees because few
Ph.D. programs existed in the field. There are still few programs in the
country granting doctorates in nursing, but there have been
college-level nursing programs for well over half a century. There are
also many, many academic programs across the country for which there is
no corresponding doctoral degree, for example, hotel and hospitality
management, sports management, real estate, criminal justice, dance, and
many more. Faculty in those programs earn doctorates in another field,
sometimes in an allied field, sometimes in higher education. They've all
demonstrated that acquiring the necessary academic credentials is doable.
Just my thoughts,
Kathleen Lenerz, Ph.D.
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message