Application Strategies :
In Search of the Model of a Certified Genealogist
From OnBoard
- Newsletter of the BCG
Printer Friendly
Gail J. Miller, "In Search of the Model of
a Certified Genealogist ," OnBoard 6 (May 2000): 13.
What is a Certified Genealogist? In applying for certification,
that was the question that had to be addressed before I
could apply. I knew from the beginning that if I could
answer that question, I could get certified.
When I began the process, certification involved the demonstration
of proficiency in several areas associated with interpretation
of records, knowledge of primary and secondary sources,
management skills, writing, documentation, reporting, and
counseling skills. The general goals were well written
and the specific submission requirements were defined down
to the number of pages and format that should be submitted.
None of this was a problem; it was clear. The difficulty
lay in what exactly was required. Who and what were the
acceptable models of performance?
I did not know a Certified Genealogist. I had no "approved"
paperwork to examine; no "certified" person to question.
In one way, I learned much more from the process because
I had to search for the model. In looking for the model
in "certified people," I found reality, probably much more
than I would have had I looked at their "submitted" work.
The model certified genealogist had many faces. To see
them, I had to listen to them speak at national conferences.
I attended methodology sessions and professional tracks.
I learned more about genealogical standards. I came to
see that some professionals knew much more than I did about
certain areas and some less. I learned that some had standards
that I need to strive for and some seemed to have lower
standards than I did. I realized that Board-certified genealgoists
were better than average genealogists. However, there seemed
to be great differences in the quality of Certified Genealogists
and thus, differences in the acceptable standard.
Certification, then, must be about raising standards; but I still could not
find the benchmark.
I needed models in print. I was already in the process
of writing a multi-generational genealogy. Many had written
about this family before and I was aware of the problems
of poor or no documentation. I understood the value of
primary sources and examination of everything available.
I read about citing sources and footnoted everything. I
read social history to learn about the lives of my ancestors.
I looked at family histories that had won awards and were
well reviewed in national publications. I reread the guidelines.
Still, how much was enough biographical information? Does
it really require that every statement be documented with
a primary source? The award-winning, compiled histories
did not always seem to meet my interpretation of the guidelines.
Did that mean that the guidelines were not expected to
be met or that I was misinterpreting the guidelines?
The model for the research report done for clients was
even more trying. I had hired professionals myself with
mixed results. I knew what I liked to see in commissioned
reports and I tried to do the same thing for my clients.
Clietns seemed mostly pleased with the result. Was that
enough? I had received reports written for ex-clients of
Certified Genealogists on several occassions as these same
clients hired me. The reports were often incomplete or
unsatisfactory. Were these typical or was I only getting
the sloppy, atypical examples? Was I trying to do more
than I needed to for each client? How long should the report
be? Who would be judging my work? How had they interpreted
the standard?
The two documents supplied to abstract, transcribe, and
interpret were fairly obscure documents unlikely to be
standing out of context in researching a genealogical question.
The copies were poor and not clearly identified. Should
I get a copy of the original? Were the next steps really
as straightforward as they seemed from the documents or
was I missing something? Should I act on the document in
the same way that I would in reality or should I try to
make it more?
What about what was previously called "the preponderance-of-the-evidence
principle"? I needed to show an example that would demonstrate
that I could describe, analyze, and draw conclusions from
evidence but also see the possibility of another conclusion.
My training in the sciences had made me conservative in
calling evidence proof of a position. Shoudl I be conservative
in my conclusions or be creative? Articles were no help
here. I had seen well-written articles in national quarterlies
that stressed the need to be conservative and also those
which seemed to draw conclusions that I would have never
drawn. Where was the model?
Across the years in which I was thinking about certification,
applied, and then was approved, I learned a great deal
from the models. Finally, I just had to send in the paperwork
and take my chances.
In the process, I learned that being a CG is not a static
role but has a variety of faces. The key to improvement becomes asking the
right questions and looking for good models. Even though I reached one mark
by becoming certified, the goal of personal satisfaction in my knowledge and
ability is still beyond where I am now. If I can keep that attitude, perhaps
someday, I too can be a model. Gail J. Miller, CGSM
This article was originally published in OnBoard,
BCG's educational newsletter and is protected by copyright.
Individuals may download and print copies for their personal
study. Educators are granted permission to provide copies
to their students as long as BCG, OnBoard, and the
appropriate author are credited as the source of the material.
Republication elsewhere is not permitted.
|
