Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264436495

From: "LBoswell" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Usability [was Genealogy as a discipline]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:21:39 -0500
References: <> <><5585892BD4C7406CBC4AF7D31AB1A910@acer511eba12df><012e01ca9d6b$a85191e0$f8f4b5a0$@net>
In-Reply-To: <012e01ca9d6b$a85191e0$f8f4b5a0$@net>

Elizabeth, Jeanette has answered it, but to elaborate I hold three advanced
level certificates, all issued "with distinction," with post-nominals
awarded by the University of Toronto through it's association with the
National Institute for Genealogical Studies. Combined, the three
certificates represent a 40 course program, usually completed over a three
year period.

And to answer those in a "circle" who checked, I also hold a BA in
Psychology, issued "with distinction" awarded from Carleton University in
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, which includes a concentration in History. I've 25
years experience (probably more) directly in genealogy research. I've a
strong background in Civil Liberties (privacy/access, and patients' rights).
I'm married to an ATIP Investigator (Access to Information and Privacy), who
works for the Office of the Access to Information Commissioner (Federal).
I'm also a historical researcher with a background in architectural
restoration (as illustrator and researcher), plus I've done quite a bit of
research on the history of the labour movements in Canada and the UK.

I hope that saves anyone from having to waste time checking my website

Those aren't particularly impressive credentials, nothing out of the
ordinary (there are many with more credentials, some with less, but who
cares?) but I think they qualify me to hold opinions on the content of the
BCG and other genealogical research issues? Maybe not opinions that are
agreeable to all, but I've never expressed any disrespect for the BCG's
attempt to produce a set of standards. I just don't think they've got there
yet. I've repeatedly praised the efforts of those who have worked on this
attempt. But that said, I have expressed concerns. And as we go through the
standards I'm giving my view.

Maybe I've been too informal in my on list approach, taking too relaxed
positions from which to talk. I'll be more careful as I go, but sometimes
there's value in just throwing ideas around and talking them through. If
done respectfully (as has been the case mostly in these discussions)

But that's it for today. Yes, mopping indeed. I'm hiding here writing
source citations now to hide from the mopping. How's that for a switch.


> Give your conclusion that the GPS is only a BCG tool for the certification
> process, I'm puzzled how you could have "taken advanced methodology
> courses
> based on the BCG GPS." BCG doesn't offer such a course. My own advanced
> methodology course at the Samford IGHR is certainly rooted in the GPS, but
> unless I slept through one week of it, I don't think you've attended.
> If this presumptions holds, the logical conclusion would be that some
> other
> institution also feels the GPS is important to genealogical methodology.
> But
> then, given the extent to which you have issues with the GPS, I have to
> ask:
> Are you basing your view of the GPS on what this other institution taught
> or
> on what BCG itself teaches in its "skillbuilding" tracks at major
> conferences?
> Elizabeth
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> Tennessee
> -------------------------------
> 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

This thread: