Hi, Several of us in my town have decided to form a study group loosely based on the NGSQ Study Group format. In all the information I have read (BCG, APGen, E.S. Mills 10-Points, etc) no one ever mentions reading *The Source*. Why? All of us (4) have *The Source* and I have both *The Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy* and *Genealogical Research: Methods and Sources, Vol 1 & 2* (which I notice Greenwood's book refers to from time to time) edited by Milton Rubincam. Only one of our libraries has a copy of Greenwood's book and, of course, it is a reference book so cannot be checked out. Our plan is to read an NGSQ article of our choosing and pair it with a chapter in *The Source* or Greenwood's book that helps us better understand at least one kind of record used in the case study. My question is: Why does Greenwood's book seem to be valued over *The Source*? Does it really matter what reference book we read to expand our knowledge of records for genealogical research? Thanks Margie in Washington State

Hi Margie -- We have a couple of genealogy discussion/study groups sponsored by our local genealogy society (http://slocgs.org/interestgroups.html), one titled "Mentored Intermediate Genealogy Study Group," and the second called "Implementing Professional Standards: Advanced Genealogy Discussion." The second group has met for more than two years, and has been able to dispense with most planned activities. Although that group initially began with assignments/activities, we have evolved into a discussion format because the participants usually show up with more than we have time to address. This works REALLY well for the organizer because there is NO preparation. Occasionally (this happened recently), we sense things beginning to lag, and we then create an optional assignment. Right now, we are working our way through ESM's Evidence Explained QuckLesson Archive. All of the members of this group have been to advanced institutes and completed narrative client reports. The first group, the "intermediate" group, has only been meeting for about 6-7 months. In that group, we devote 3-4 months to each element of the Genealogical Proof Standard, working on a research problem from our individual family trees. Our references are *Evidence Explained*; *QuckSheet: Genealogy Problem Analysis* (ESM), *Evidence Analysis: A Research Process Map* (ESM), and the *Family Tree Problem Solver* by Marsha Hoffman Rising. Every month, participants bring in their research logs, footnotes, narratives, and so on for group discussion. Both groups focus on methodology over sources, although we certainly share new, interesting sources when we come across them. Your primary references (than the Q articles, of course), sound as if you may be focusing on sources. I DO think that the reference books that you choose matter. Do you want to focus on "source knowledge," relatively easy to obtain, according to Tom Jones? Or do you want to focus on "methodological knowledge," more difficult to obtain, according to Jones? Or both equally? A bigger question -- can you outline goals for this group? The content of this outline will depend on the goals, experience, and formal traning of your group members. Have they been to state and national conferences? Have they attended institutes? Do they subscribe to the Q? Cafi in California Hi, Several of us in my town have decided to form a study group loosely based on the NGSQ Study Group format. In all the information I have read (BCG, APGen, E.S. Mills 10-Points, etc) no one ever mentions reading *The Source*. Why? All of us (4) have *The Source* and I have both *The Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy* and *Genealogical Research: Methods and Sources, Vol 1 & 2* (which I notice Greenwood's book refers to from time to time) edited by Milton Rubincam. Only one of our libraries has a copy of Greenwood's book and, of course, it is a reference book so cannot be checked out. Our plan is to read an NGSQ article of our choosing and pair it with a chapter in *The Source* or Greenwood's book that helps us better understand at least one kind of record used in the case study. My question is: Why does Greenwood's book seem to be valued over *The Source*? Does it really matter what reference book we read to expand our knowledge of records for genealogical research? Thanks Margie in Washington State