TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-03 > 1267476509


From: Sheri Fenley <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Degrees of Professionality?
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:48:29 -0800
References: <mailman.8741.1267456752.2663.transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com><a06240811c7b18e6811ab@192.168.1.2><COL108-DS19F8624FEFCD9051702FF0923C0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <COL108-DS19F8624FEFCD9051702FF0923C0@phx.gbl>


Why are we dividing into "camps"? Why are people on this list having to
defend themselves?

I have been with this list since it began and I can tell you that it was not
created for the baloney I have seen recently.

It began as a place for transitioning genealogists to ask questions and
voices concerns and feel safe that no one think them silly or put them
down.

As far as I know, this is not a list for heated debates or sandbox
bullying. All the big words and mock politeness don't cover it up. Frankly
it makes me uncomfortable and I can guarantee you that I am not the only one
who feels this way, although I may be the only one who will say it.

Delete the posts you say? Why should I have to? If people want the ugly
banter back and forth, go start your own list.

Sheri Fenley


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Michael Hait <>wrote:

> This is a clear delineation of three "camps," Jillaine, but not completely
> representative of all opinions. I for example, using your definitions,
> would fall into a mix of Camp Boswell and Camp BCG. I agree with Larry's
> assessment that there are many different approaches to genealogy, and that
> success may come through any of them. I know plenty of skilled
> genealogists
> who are not BCG certified, nor have any desire to be. This does not in any
> way speak to their ability.
>
> I stand adamantly against the first camp -- which I think may be more
> accurately described as "Camp Daniels-Petty" due to its frequent promotion
> on the old APG list by researcher Mary Petty -- because of its extremely
> exclusionary ideas for the future of the "profession." I have had enough
> experience with post-graduates that have no common sense to know that a
> college education does not in any way guarantee intelligence. Were I a
> potential genealogy consumer, I would much rather hire an intelligent
> genealogist than one who simply has a degree. Self-trained individuals,
> myself included, can be every bit as proficient -- or even more so --
> compared to those with higher education.
>
> This is also why I support and attempt to follow the BCG standards. The
> standards codified by the BCG ring true to my experience in genealogical
> research, so I attempt to adhere to them as a general policy. I have also
> found that, since doing so, my rate of success has risen. My understanding
> of the BCG standards comes through, and is colored by, my experience, and
> my
> own powers of reasoning and understanding. But the true strength of the
> BCG
> is that it tests the skills of genealogists through peer review of
> practical
> work products. But I do not by any means feel that the profession should
> be
> limited to those who follow the BCG.
>
> My general philosophy in life is that a person should be judged by his or
> her actions. This carries over into my philosophy on the profession of
> genealogy. A person's qualifications should be judged by the work that
> person produces. Please do not read the following as me "tooting my own
> horn," but merely using myself as an example of how I believe a
> genealogist's skills should be judged by his work. I am not currently BCG
> certified, though I am "on the clock." However, I have several public
> testimonials to my research skills on my LinkedIn profile. I have
> successfully prepared both DAR and Colonial Dames applications based on my
> research. I have subcontracted work for both CGs and federal government
> contractors. And the percentage of my past clients who come back for
> follow-up research or new research projects on other lines themselves, or
> refer me to new clients, is extremely high. Though I have only completed
> seven projects for Ancestry's Expert Connect, my rating is a perfect five
> stars. Anyone can also judge my skill to some degree based on the writing
> that I have done, much of which is available online. To me BCG
> certification serves as a means of peer review by other highly skilled and
> qualified genealogists, and this is the reason that I am pursuing it. I
> also plan to submit an article to NGSQ as soon as I decide on a specific
> case study to extend research on and write up for that purpose -- this
> serves as another means of peer review.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jillaine Smith" <>
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: [TGF] Degrees of Professionality?
>
> > In my ongoing journey to understand the landscape of professional
> > genealogy, I'm seeing from Jeanette's and Larry's and others' posts
> > at other times that there seem to be three "camps" for where
> > professionality should be/evolve.
> >
> > 1. Development of a level of professionality that requires
> > university-level education *in* genealogy in order to be eligible for
> > certification by a gov't-approved certifying body and to be eligible
> > for gov't or other high-level contracts. This is Camp Jeanette.
> >
> > 2. Development of a set of general guidelines (not standards), that
> > if adhered to, a professional could apply a range of approaches to
> > genealogical research, whether or not certified, whether or not
> > following BCG's standards, whether institutionally trained or
> > self-trained. This is Camp Boswell.
> >
> > 3. Use of the standards developed by BCG (in the absence of other
> > standards at the time they were created), whether or not one is
> > seeking or has obtained *BCG* certification, and with or without
> > formal institutional training/education *in genealogy*. This might be
> > called Camp ESM, but I hesitate to call it so, because I've compiled
> > it from a number of posters, where as #1 and #2 were pulled from
> > specific messages from those individuals. So perhaps it would be
> > wiser to call it Camp BCG? (All camp names provided solely for ease
> > of discussion.)
> >
> > In any case, this is what I'm perceiving so far, whether or not it is
> > accurate.
> >
> > --
> > ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
> > Jillaine Smith - Bethesda, Maryland
> > www.jillainesmith.com (professional)
> > www.werelate.org/wiki/User:jillaine (collaborative research)
> > freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jillaine (personal research)
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: