APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2007-12 > 1197057432
From: Tom Jones <>
Subject: [APG] APG Name Change?
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:57:12 -0500
Jeanette and All ---
Of the several issues the September /APGQ/ president's column raises, I
think the least significant is the organization's name. Name may be the
easiest point to address, but I doubt that time discussing it would be
well spent, especially before APG considers questions about its goals
and purposes. Sharon's column raises several of these fundamental questions:
1. What is APG? Is it a professional association, business
organization, trade group, educational entity, support system, or
something else? If APG fills several of these roles, which is
APG's priority when the roles conflict? What is APG's role in the
genealogical community? What is APG's place in the professional
community at large? What is APG's role in the eye of the general
2. What is genealogy? Is it a profession? If so, who belongs to it?
Who does not? (The answers may lead to criteria for APG
membership, perhaps within levels or categories. They also may
lead to a measure of exclusivity, which would be distasteful to
3. When APG members' needs conflict with the genealogy profession's
advancement (as they do and will), which road should APG take?
4. Should the genealogy profession monitor professional practice, as
most professions do, especially given the absence of government
licensing or other external regulation of professional genealogy?
If so, what role should APG have in that monitoring?
Questions like these, I think, would be hard for any evolving
organization to answer. Opinions will be strongly divided, emotions will
flare, and members will leave. Consensus will be impossible to achieve.
Nevertheless, I think APG needs to answer the questions as best it can,
and I hope the incoming board will do so. Hearing diverse views from
many current and prospective genealogical professionals will help.
Despite fallout, I firmly believe that APG's addressing the above and
related questions will lead to clearer goals and activities and a
stronger organization and profession.
On 1 and 2 August 2007 Kathleen Lenerz, Ph.D., (whose name does not
appear in the APG directory) sent this list insightful messages related
to the above questions. The URLs for the archived postings are pasted
below. Dr. Lenerz cites a paper titled "Some Notes on the Sociology of
Professions," by Peter Morrell, a professor in the United Kingdom, which
also provides perspective on the above questions. That URL also is
pasted below. I encourage every current or prospective genealogical
professional to re-read these pages in light of the issues that the
September president's column raises. That whole discussion last summer
is worth reviewing, but these are the postings that hit home with me:
Thomas W. Jones, Ph.D., CG, CG, FASG
Member, National Capitol Area Chapter
CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are
service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used
under license by certificants after periodic evaluation. The board name
is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Jeanette Daniels wrote:
> Thank you for your evaluation of the September President's column in
> the APGQ. I agree with what you have written. Instead of having this
> organization be called the Association of Professional Genealogists
> since so many are not tracing ancestry but are in related fields such
> as publishing genealogical or historical books, etc (the umbrella
> concept), that the name that would be better to represent the group is
> the Association of Genealogical Professionals. I didn't make this
> name up. Last Saturday, Jim Petty told my husband this would be a
> better name for the group since so many do not make their living by
> tracing ancestry for clients.
|[APG] APG Name Change? by Tom Jones <>|