Why Ambitious Genealogists Need Credentials

Few of us know exactly what we don't know. And few of us have the right sort of friends, mentors, and teachers -- those who will tell us! That's what the credentialing programs offered by ICAPGen (accreditation) and the Board for the Certification of Genealogists (certification, my choice) do.

Nobody needs a credential in order to be a good or great genealogy researcher. But until we try to meet those standards, we don't know how good we really are. There are plenty of people who will pat us on the back and say, “It's fine,” whether it is or not.

I always knew I wanted a credential. I was impressed that BCG's is entirely performance-based. Attendance at conferences, institutes, or universities may help you learn but is not required. Degrees and attendance records don't count. Being good in class or talking a good game doesn't count. How you actually research and report is all that matters.

Many people will express skepticism about having "letters after their name." Some have encountered or heard of credentialed people who made mistakes. But that's a straw man: no one ever claimed that being certified or accredited would make you infallible! Ideally, we don't make as many as we used to, and we learn from the ones we do make.

Others say, "Well, I think I'm pretty good and all my friends and clients say so, I don't need it." The first part may well be true, but the second part does not follow. It takes a staunch friend to point out that your citations are inconsistent and your lectures wander. The judges upholding the value of CG or AG designations aren't under the obligations of friendship.

And frankly, we've all had the experience of thinking we were pretty good when we weren't. I submitted an entry to the NGS writing contest a few years back. It was a lot of work; it chronicled a large family -- and it contained close to zero citations to either property or probate records. Needless to say, it didn't win, and one of the judges explained that was one reason why. 

Later on, I tried for certification twice and recently succeeded the second time. Tomorrow, a few thoughts on what worked and what didn't.

Harold Henderson, "Why Ambitious Genealogists Need Credentials," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 14 August 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]

Professionals and amateurs, together forever

When genealogists get talking about professionalism, we often tend to compare genealogy unfavorably to well-established professions like doctors and lawyers. I think that better comparison groups are drivers, writers, and people involved in child care. (And this applies whether you define "professional" as "doing it for money" or as "doing it to high standards.")

Each of these three fields is divided between:

(1) a small group of experienced and knowledgeable professionals, and

(2) a large and constantly replenished group of amateurs. Some of the amateurs are quite competent. Others may actually be dangerous to themselves, their neighbors, and their respective professionals -- such as the guy who cut me off yesterday, or the amateur writer who omitted the comma from "Let's eat, grandma."

Within each occupational group, amateurs and professionals interact constantly and have an ill-defined and sometimes uncomfortable relationship.

In genealogy and driving, there are some standards-based ways to identify professionals based on performance. You have to have a certain class license to drive a semi, and you have to be OKd by the proper body to use the initials CG or AG. But the tension remains.

Just having standards and being able to enforce them in some ways doesn't erase the need to continuously negotiate the nebulous boundaries between amateur and professional. There will always be more amateurs, and some of them will look askance at those who do genealogy for pay, or who insist on reference notes. I don't see any long-term "solution," just ongoing discussion, education, and maneuvering.

Even the medical profession, which over the last century achieved strong control over who can practice medicine, is frittering away its franchise by what I (as the opinionated child of a physician) see as a combination of expense, inconvenience, arrogance, and industrial-style production-line health care. These days my wife and I  get our flu shots from a pharmacist, who unlike an M.D. is readily accessible at short notice. We also often get our everyday medical advice from family members in auxiliary health professions or from WebMD or the Berkeley Wellness Letter.

For professionals there is no permanent victory, only eternal vigilance -- and eternal flexibility.


Harold Henderson, "Professionals and amateurs, together forever," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 29 June 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]