The wonder is that anyone survived childbirth. For a really gruesome review of THAT subject, see Brought to Bed: Childbearing in America,1750-1950 by Judith Walzer Leavitt. The number of things that frequently went wrong in the birth process that could affect a child's ability to thrive was, frankly, more than I could handle.  Kay 

Babies died a lot back then. And sometimes it was due to an epidemic or other condition in a particular area. I had an elderly ancestor die of heat stroke in Cincinnati at age 78 in the later part of the 1800's. I pulled up newspapers for the day that he died and discovered it was the worst heat wave in Cincinnati ever and that so many people died of heat stroke that day that the morges were overflowing and they were putting bodies in other locations. Phyllis

[cc'ed to APG Members listserv where this discussion is also happening] As often happens on mailing lists, it's easy for the discussion to veer = off from the original topic. And some of that veering goes into = interesting, related territory-- such as what will it take for the field = of genealogy to be taken seriously? (And one could certainly argue that = the original posts by Mary P and Jeanette D also get at this topic.) I asked this last year and I will ask it again: what is the problem we = are trying to solve with this question of who is a professional? Here is = my attempt to extract from a couple of rather meandering posts this = year's "presenting problem." Based on my read, Mary P and Jeanette D are raising concerns about = non-professional behavior of people who are called-- by themselves or = others-- professional genealogists. If I understand her correctly, Mary is saying that if the field of = genealogy does not create a licensing system for those who practice = genealogy services for pay (and we know from her previous posts on this = topic that such licensing would be based on achievement of an academic = degree in Genealogy), then the government will regulate us. I think she = is also saying that by extension, those without such a license would be = legally prevented from charging fees for their services and prosecuted = if they did so.=20 Jeanette, I believe, is calling for a governance body that will = arbitrate abuses perpetrated by professionals on consumers and other = professionals. APG does have a working ethics review committee and a = set of codes against which it will review complaints submitted against = its members. It does not deal with issues not addressed in those codes, = and it does not address complaints against providers of genealogical = services who are not APG members. Jeanette questions how well it = executes such reviews and may be going so far as to call it to go even = further into legal means of dealing with professional abuse.=20 [If I did not get either of these right, I hope the authors will be more = concise in the point they are trying to convey.] If these are the problems to be solved, the discussion questions seem to = be: What benefits would accrue to the field of genealogy and those it serves = from an academic-degree-based licensing system? And what are the = risks/costs of not doing so?=20 What will it take to have an objective procedure for reviewing and and = holding accountable perpetrators of professional abuses? Is it time to change the subject header? Jillaine Smith Bringing Your Ancestors to Life ancestors2life.wordpress.com

Here are my thoughts on a Professional Genealogist (or any other discipline). A professional genealogist is only a professional genealogist when a professional genealogist says that the person is a professional genealogist. One cannot declare *themselves* to be a professional genealogist. A professional genealogist can declare *someone else* to be a professional genealogist. Does this mean an amateur can not do professional work. No. But if I am interested in hiring a professional genealogist, I will take the recommendations of a professional genealogist. And that is the crux of the matter of the question: who is a professional genealogist? Someone a professional genealogist says is a professional genealogist. It is a matter of trust and confidence. I trust professional genealogists to refer me to someone they would trust to do good genealogy. I would have confidence that that was true if I trusted the professional genealogist. If it was any random person on this list, I would not necessarily trust them. As a lurker (mostly) here, I know a certain select few of you that I would trust as professionals. On their recommendation, I would not hesitate to commit funds to your recommended persons to help flesh out my genealogy. What it boils down to is who would you trust to do a professional job of researching your genealogy. There are several certification programs. I would trust any of them that engender respect from people in the field. So I would have some sort of trust for anyone with alphabet soup after their name. The alphabet soup means that they have impressed "professionals" in the field. (Not that there are not sub-fields that require different or additional credentials). The alphabet soup is not absolutely required, but it helps. If someone I respect says that "Bill does professional work" I would take that under advisement. I would also take under advisement that "Joe is a hack" from someone I respect, even if Joe had alphabet soup after his name. The same as I would take an M.D. after a doctor's name as the fact that he had been declared a professional by professionals. And I would take under advisement the fact that someone I trusted would tell me "Dr. Dan is a hack". Alphabet soup does not guarantee a good professional. I don't know what a survey of non-professionals would gain here. It seems to me to be a waste of time and effort. I'll take the recommendations of professionals on professionals, if I am seeking professional work. And yes, there are professionals in genealogy. I'd say that any current certifying group in genealogy is a professional group that I would trust. Unless other trusted professionals disparage that group. But I'd want to know why. I speak from a lifetime of experience of alphabet soup after my name. B.S., M.S., Ph.D. Then IT certification from peers and superiors that easily landed me further jobs. My B.S. in Physical Chemistry landed me in a graduate program of Chemistry by degree and recommendation of faculty. My performance in Physical Chemistry, M.S. in X-Ray Crystallography and Ph.D. in Theoretical Chemistry landed me a number of PostDocs in Chemistry by degree and faculty recommendation. Professionals recommending professionals. Not by my mouth. Their recommendations. Not by amateur opinions (in survey or not). I landed postdocs easily and learned mainframe and group sized computer operations that became a profession for me by recommendation of professionals that I professionally was able to make their computers run from soup to nuts. Not by my mouth, theirs. I landed my final permanent position at a University on such recommendations, performed well, and climbed the ladder of IT based on recommendations of professionals. Not by declaring myself a professional, but by letting others declare my credentials. Then I retired. And I'm unlikely to seek more alphabet soup after my name, been there, done that, too many times. If anyone wants to declare me a professional genealogist, so be it, but I declare myself as an amateur genealogist. But my SAR chapter looks to me as I got 14 people (many long time laggards) into SAR in less than 2 years with my amateur status. My major point: you cannot declare yourself a professional. Someone has to do that for you. And that someone has to be a professional. My $0.02. John On 9/22/2012 7:150 PM, Mary E. Petty wrote: > Dear TGF > > > > I have been involved a fascinating discussion on the topic “Who is a Professional?”. It has been civil and stimulating and hopefully much good will come of it as we move towards professionalization in genealogy. As I continue my work on Professional Genealogy: Vision 2020 I share my latest post with you on TGF to widen the conversation with those who will be most impacted by what today’s professionals do for the future of genealogy as a profession. I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

I think Dee Dee's suggestion was that we poll those outside of genealogy. Her position seems to be that _outside of genealogy_ the term "professional" has a very specific meaning that is understood. This meaning does not align with how we use it _inside genealogy_. Personally, I am split. I have a relatively inclusive definition of the term "professional genealogist," but I generally feel that this requires doing some form of work--paid or unpaid--for someone other than one's own family. This work is not necessarily restricted to those who conduct research but also may include authors, lecturers and educators, publishers, etc. The key point, I think, is that a professional has to do something for someone else. Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:07 PM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? I can picture APG handing out a short survey at a national conference from the booth and making it short enough (and with perhaps an enticement of a chocolate or swag or a tschoke) that they can answer it on the spot. Letting them walk away with it will not see as many returns. It would at least poll a cross-section of a conference-going population. -- Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. > -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Rondina Muncy > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:47 PM > > Focus groups are expensive, but a well-written survey with a sampling would be within > APG's budget. I suspect that the subject might bring in a higher response rate than usual. > This requires hiring real experts, telling them the information you need to know and > letting them handle it. I agree that the responses would most likely be eye-opening. I > would love to see the answers to open-ended questions. Also of interest would be the > thoughts of the hundreds of hobbyists that attend conferences. Those surveys could be > done individually just like mall surveys. > > Rondina The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can picture APG handing out a short survey at a national conference from the booth and making it short enough (and with perhaps an enticement of a chocolate or swag or a tschoke) that they can answer it on the spot. Letting them walk away with it will not see as many returns. It would at least poll a cross-section of a conference-going population. -- Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. > -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Rondina Muncy > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:47 PM > > Focus groups are expensive, but a well-written survey with a sampling would be within > APG's budget. I suspect that the subject might bring in a higher response rate than usual. > This requires hiring real experts, telling them the information you need to know and > letting them handle it. I agree that the responses would most likely be eye-opening. I > would love to see the answers to open-ended questions. Also of interest would be the > thoughts of the hundreds of hobbyists that attend conferences. Those surveys could be > done individually just like mall surveys. > > Rondina

Just a couple of quick thoughts: (1) Isn't the purpose of a license that it can be taken away if the person violates the rules of the profession? (2) There are other fields in which amateurs do serious and respected work. One of these is astronomy; quite a few people who don't get paid to do astronomy have discovered comets etc.

Michael, A real survey that pinpointed the part of the population that is the professional's target would have questions at the beginning about whether the respondent had ever dabbled in genealogical research. The likelihood that someone who has not ever done any research of any type (no letters, no cemetery photos, no nothing) on their family will hire a professional slims down any kind of response to questions. The percentage of positive/negative responses to that question alone tells us something. You also have to figure in that a certain number of respondents must fit age categories. The number of calls being made to fill that requirement also tells us something. From there, if the person qualifies, the survey would pick up. The question of exactly what a respondent thinks a professional genealogist does would have be cushioned with other worthwhile information obtained. I suspect Ancestry has conducted these surveys repeatedly. Rondina On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Michael Hait <michael.hait@hotmail.com>wrote: > I think Dee Dee's suggestion was that we poll those outside of genealogy. > > Her position seems to be that _outside of genealogy_ the term > "professional" > has a very specific meaning that is understood. This meaning does not align > with how we use it _inside genealogy_. > > Personally, I am split. I have a relatively inclusive definition of the > term > "professional genealogist," but I generally feel that this requires doing > some form of work--paid or unpaid--for someone other than one's own family. > This work is not necessarily restricted to those who conduct research but > also may include authors, lecturers and educators, publishers, etc. The key > point, I think, is that a professional has to do something for someone > else. > > > Michael Hait, CG(sm) > michael.hait@hotmail.com > http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com > "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com > > >

Elissa, That would provide a built-in bias and the respondent never handles the survey. APG would have to work with the conference sponsors for access to the hallways so they can stop and ask people randomly. The interviewers cannot be associated with the conference, the conference sponsors, or the association. This is exactly why I said that a qualified market research firm should be hired to do this if it was ever considered. Rondina On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL < Elissa@powellgenealogy.com> wrote: > I can picture APG handing out a short survey at a national conference from > the booth and making it short enough (and with perhaps an enticement of a > chocolate or swag or a tschoke) that they can answer it on the spot. > Letting > them walk away with it will not see as many returns. > > It would at least poll a cross-section of a conference-going population. > > -- Elissa > > E > >

But that is still from within the genealogy pond and would be somewhat "tainted" by those who have read or participated in these discussions. The point should be to see if the definitions promoted by some in our pond jive with the definitions commonly used by those outside our pond. best regards, Dee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL" <Elissa@powellgenealogy.com> To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:07:34 PM Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? I can picture APG handing out a short survey at a national conference from the booth and making it short enough (and with perhaps an enticement of a chocolate or swag or a tschoke) that they can answer it on the spot. Letting them walk away with it will not see as many returns. It would at least poll a cross-section of a conference-going population. -- Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. > -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Rondina Muncy > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:47 PM > > Focus groups are expensive, but a well-written survey with a sampling would be within > APG's budget. I suspect that the subject might bring in a higher response rate than usual. > This requires hiring real experts, telling them the information you need to know and > letting them handle it. I agree that the responses would most likely be eye-opening. I > would love to see the answers to open-ended questions. Also of interest would be the > thoughts of the hundreds of hobbyists that attend conferences. Those surveys could be > done individually just like mall surveys. > > Rondina The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Christopher Gray > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:05 AM > > Just to re-iterate what has been stated elsewhere in this stream - just because I choose to > act "professionally" when carrying out research in genealogy or family history does not > make me "a professional". Why not? It appears that some people are using a definition based on actions, and some are basing it using money. Couldn't the "definition" include both? This reminds me of the term "late" when reading old documents. A widow's husband may be the late John Smith. A bride may be Mrs. Jones, late Miss Smith. She didn't die and he wasn't tardy. This points out three various "definitions" of the word "late." Is any one of them incorrect? No, it depends on usage and context. I suggest that when we talk about being a professional, we could include some of the context in which we make that statement. Those who adhere to best practices and standards or those who take money or those who do both should all be proud to say they work "professionally." -- Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Focus groups are expensive, but a well-written survey with a sampling would be within APG's budget. I suspect that the subject might bring in a higher response rate than usual. This requires hiring real experts, telling them the information you need to know and letting them handle it. I agree that the responses would most likely be eye-opening. I would love to see the answers to open-ended questions. Also of interest would be the thoughts of the hundreds of hobbyists that attend conferences. Those surveys could be done individually just like mall surveys. Rondina On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Dee Dee King, Certified Genealogist < king@forensicgenealogyservices.com> wrote: > I think it would be really neat if a poll was developed in which > non-genealogy folks could respond to the genealogy world's version of some > of the terms used. Maybe focus groups? Might be an eye-opener. > > Best regards, > > Dee > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL" <Elissa@powellgenealogy.com> > To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:55:59 PM > Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: On Behalf Of Christopher Gray > > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:05 AM > > > > Just to re-iterate what has been stated elsewhere in this stream - just > because I choose to > > act "professionally" when carrying out research in genealogy or family > history does not > > make me "a professional". > > > Why not? > > It appears that some people are using a definition based on actions, and > some are basing it using money. Couldn't the "definition" include both? > > This reminds me of the term "late" when reading old documents. A widow's > husband may be the late John Smith. A bride may be Mrs. Jones, late Miss > Smith. She didn't die and he wasn't tardy. This points out three various > "definitions" of the word "late." Is any one of them incorrect? No, it > depends on usage and context. > > I suggest that when we talk about being a professional, we could include > some of the context in which we make that statement. Those who adhere to > best practices and standards or those who take money or those who do both > should all be proud to say they work "professionally." > > -- Elissa > > Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL > www.PowellGenealogy.com > www.GRIPitt.org > CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are > Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under > license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and > the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark > Office. > > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

But do those amateurs call themselves professional astronomers? best regards, Dee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Botteron" <botteron@alum.mit.edu> To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:46:23 PM Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? Just a couple of quick thoughts: (1) Isn't the purpose of a license that it can be taken away if the person violates the rules of the profession? (2) There are other fields in which amateurs do serious and respected work. One of these is astronomy; quite a few people who don't get paid to do astronomy have discovered comets etc. The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think it would be really neat if a poll was developed in which non-genealogy folks could respond to the genealogy world's version of some of the terms used. Maybe focus groups? Might be an eye-opener. Best regards, Dee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL" <Elissa@powellgenealogy.com> To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:55:59 PM Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? > -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Christopher Gray > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:05 AM > > Just to re-iterate what has been stated elsewhere in this stream - just because I choose to > act "professionally" when carrying out research in genealogy or family history does not > make me "a professional". Why not? It appears that some people are using a definition based on actions, and some are basing it using money. Couldn't the "definition" include both? This reminds me of the term "late" when reading old documents. A widow's husband may be the late John Smith. A bride may be Mrs. Jones, late Miss Smith. She didn't die and he wasn't tardy. This points out three various "definitions" of the word "late." Is any one of them incorrect? No, it depends on usage and context. I suggest that when we talk about being a professional, we could include some of the context in which we make that statement. Those who adhere to best practices and standards or those who take money or those who do both should all be proud to say they work "professionally." -- Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread is touching on a number of separate issues: the respectability of the discipline, and the quality of the work done in its name. I don't believe it needs regulation for all the reasons that others have eloquently expressed. The systems of qualifications (incl. BCG, AGRA, and others) are more than adequate and should be supported and encouraged. I commented elsewhere, quite recently, that:- "The terms 'hobby' or 'hobbyist' are a little controversial in this field. Although it may be a pastime to many - separate from the paid day-job - it is technically a science, just as much as any historical research or CSI. Some fear that genealogy may not be treated with the correct level of respect from outside the field largely because it is viewed as a mere 'hobby'. Of course, it all comes down to the definitions we use for those terms. However, calling it 'family history' is a good step in the right direction because it certainly reinforces the relationship to history, albeit local-history or micro-history. The techniques and disciplines are exactly the same." To some people, genealogy and family-history may be synonymous, but I am not one of them. As the Society of Genealogists Web site suggests: family-history has a much wider scope than genealogy in its literal sense. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dee Dee King,Certified Genealogist" <king@forensicgenealogyservices.com> To: "TGF Mailing List" <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? <snip> > Dee Dee King > who, by the way is against mandatory licensing for professional > genealogists > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message

Hear hear - I fully support Dee Dee King's post. -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dee Dee King, Certified Genealogist Sent: 24 September 2012 3:09 AM To: TGF Mailing List Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? Unfortunately, the lofty definition accepted by some in our profession does not mesh with the definition of professional most commonly used outside our profession. In these **large** numbers of similar threads in the past, a few folks have asked for examples of other "professions" which describe their practitioners in the same terms. Genealogy appears to be pretty isolationist is accepting that definition. The vast majority of professions do not use this type of definition. It's not a hard stretch to predict that the average Joe on the street would not describe a professional as anyone who worked to professional standards, whether or not they were actually employed within that profession. Governing jurisdictions, and certainly the IRS, define professionals quite differently than anyone who works towards professional standards. We are reminded in our lessons about working to professional standards to study the law that applies to the situation. That is applicable to our own present situation, not just our ancestors in past circumstances. Government entities recognize professionals as those employed in the field, who earn part or all of their income from that employment. IRS is quite clear that someone who dabbles in a field with no clear intent to earn income is a hobbyist and not a professional. When we are taught to work to professional genealogical standards, we are taught to use as precise a description as possible. Shouldn't that same standard apply to describing those in our field? Those who are not professionally employed can certainly be exerts and work to professional standards. There are golfers who are experts and who may play as well as any "professional" on the circuit, but it's clear to pretty much everyone what a professional golfer is. Or any other sports professional. A professional dog groomer is a person who earns part or all of his income from services for a fee. A professional paralegal is certainly different from someone who is an expert in law but does not provides any services for fees or wages. IMHO, our lofty, somewhat isolationist definition of professional is one factor contributing to the fact that other professions do not always take us seriously. If we cannot even define professionals within our field, with a definition that is similar to those accepted by other professions, how can we ever expect to be taken seriously as professionals? best regards, Dee Dee King who, by the way is against mandatory licensing for professional genealogists The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

DonnDevine@aol.com Sent: 24 September 2012 1:08 AM > ... being a professional ... includes an acceptance of > responsibility for the quality of one's scholarly work, > for obligations to clients, colleagues, and the public > at large, and for contributing to the body of human > knowledge. People who accept and meet these challenges > are professionals, whether or not they have paying clients. I totally agree. This goes for all fields - be the person a genealogist, pool cleaner, auto-mechanic, lawyer or family historian. Chris

Phyllis Garratt Sent: 24 September 2012 12:33 AM > If perceptions really do need changing, I feel the best way is to support, > uphold and practice the highest standards. Set a good example. Excellent - I fully support this. > Also, belonging to an organization that sets standards and > supports our profession is good for not only us as professional > genealogists, but it is good for the consumer as well. I also support this. But, while I would agree that if one belongs to an organisation, then one should abide by its rules and meet its standards. This certainly does NOT mean that other genealogists or family historians MUST do the same. There are a number of organisations in this field, most have rules and standards, some monitor adherence to them, others offer them as guidance. No one organisation has the right to dictate to non-members. > Standards are a vital part of most professions no matter the type. And not just professions. Standards are vital in many areas - such as call-centres, auto-mechanics and pool cleaners. I certainly do not see many so-called professionals act any better than non-professionals. Just to re-iterate what has been stated elsewhere in this stream - just because I choose to act "professionally" when carrying out research in genealogy or family history does not make me "a professional". Chris -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Phyllis Garratt Sent: 24 September 2012 12:33 AM To: 'Joan Peake'; 'Michael Hait' Cc: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Who is a Professional? I'm going to jump in here. First of all I have not had anyone think that I am a hobbyist, although if I were a hobbyist that would be great! People I have done work for expect the highest quality work since I hold myself out to be a professional genealogist. I wonder if the notion that others think of us as hobbyists might be a self-labeled description because in my 40 years of doing genealogy I've never encountered this before. There is nothing wrong with being a hobbyist of any kind, and many professions have those who are hobbyists. If perceptions really do need changing, I feel the best way is to support, uphold and practice the highest standards. Set a good example. Also, belonging to an organization that sets standards and supports our profession is good for not only us as professional genealogists, but it is good for the consumer as well. Standards are a vital part of most professions no matter the type. Getting involved in the Association of Professional Genealogists is one way to promote the profession. Another is to become a Certified Genealogist. Neither is necessary to becoming a professional genealogist, but I choose to do both. It's working for me. Phyllis Garratt The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Everyone, For those who may have not seen the prior announcements, I just wanted to remind everyone about the APG webinar being hosted tonight, open free to both APG members and non-members. It's a great topic for anyone who communicates with others during the course of their genealogical business or research -- which should apply to pretty much all of us! Good communication skills help to accomplish your goals and avoid misunderstandings whether you're a researcher, client, librarian, archivist, author, or lecturer. Avoiding Misunderstandings: Communication Skills for Professional Genealogists Monday, September 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time Presented by Jean Wilcox Hibben, CG Learn some of the ways to avoid misunderstandings when dealing with clients (and prospective clients), booking organizations, archivists and librarians, and others professional genealogists communicate with in the operation of their businesses. https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/858709608 For a sneak preview, you can download the handout here: http://www.apgen.org/publications/Hibben_CommunicationHO.pdf Hope to see many of you there! Kimberly Powell

Iin the absence of regulation by government or by a self-governing professional organization, being a professional represents a challenge, rather than a status. It includes an acceptance of responsibility for the quality of one's scholarly work, for obligations to clients, colleagues, and the public at large, and for contributing to the body of human knowledge. People who accept and meet these challenges are professionals, whether or not they have paying clients. Donn Donn Devine, CG Wilmington, Delaware, USA CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. In a message dated 9/23/2012 5:28:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Joan Peake writes: What does it mean to be a Professional Genealogist? What separates the professional from the hobbyist? I know it is more that accepting money for work done. What are your thoughts on this? I address this to everyone on the list.