APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-05 > 1242169505


From: "Dee Dee King,Certified Genealogist" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] The Problem With "Specialties"
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <30615302.528181242168607988.JavaMail.root@mbs7.homesteadmail.com>


Harold asked:
Dee, does your argument imply that APG should somehow test or evaluate those
who claim specialties -- or would it simply be stated that when you check the
box you are claiming to have a certain described level of knowledge or
experience?



:-) Harold, my argument is that APG simply take a *first step* in modernizing our profession and produce definitions. Some of you educators out there, aren't "definitions" among the most basic of educational tools?


Harold, I know you are very smart and that you are one of our profession's up-and-comers. We've corresponded some, so I do not think you will feel uncomfortable if I ask you. Do you find anything threatening about the following or would you support the following:


In addition to the specialties listed on the APG site, a definition of each specialty be added.

The list/checking of specialties be reworked so that the member can add meaningful information about why they claim to specialize in that area. (Brief description of experience, education, classes/courses.)

A definition of **specialist** is added. Something like a "specialist" in one of these areas of genealogy has broad knowledge of the record sets pertaining to the subject, has a deep level of experience working within those record sets, has successfully completed formal and informal education regarding the subject.

With a disclaimer on the APG site that each member designates their own specialties, and are not tested or evaluated by APG regarding their experience or competency.



I am brain dead, having just spent 10 hours on a client report. The above is the rough thought process, not the polished wording.

But wouldn't just those few simple steps go a long way in educating both the visiting consumer and the newcomer to the profession.

It's not policing the members, but it does provide them with at least a minimal self-screening tool. "Oh gosh, I really do not have a broad knowledge of the records, and gee, no experience, maybe I should get some of both before I advertise myself to my APG colleagues and the public as a specialist."

I know, I know, I see the rocks flying already. Some of these are too broad. None of those steps will prevent anyone from checking specialties they are not competent in, and there are still no guarantees. But our profession would have defined who we are and what we do. We would have set a minimum example of what a specialist is. We would have informed the public how these folks designated themselves as specialists, and that APG has not evaluated the claims or competency. And if we added space for the pros to describe their specialty experience and education, why they consider themselves a specialist, then we have better educated the client and given them info to compare with others listed as specialists.

All that kinda' promotes #1 in the APG Code of Ethics - (paraphrasing)
promote a truthful, coherent approach, #3 promote trust and security of genealogical consumers, #4 advertise services honestly, and #7 promote the welfare of the genealogical community.

best regards,
d



--
Dee Dee King, Certified Genealogist (sm), Certificate 903
www.ForensicGenealogyServices.com
PO Box 1085
Manvel TX 77578

Forensic Genealogy Services is the Service Mark of Forensic Genealogy Services, LLC. Certified Genealogist (CG) is a service mark (sm) of the board for Certification of Genealogists® conferred to associates who consistently meet ethical and competency standards in accord with peer-reviewed evaluations every five years.

This thread: