Methodology . . . or I love it when a plan comes together
Every discipline, it seems, has its own jargon. Writers talk about plot and characterization and plot points and turning points and scenes and structure and black moment and denouement
(however you spell it) and a whole bunch of other stuff that allows them to 'shorthand' when talking to each other.
Genealogy has its own language, too. There are, of course, pedigree charts and family group sheets and primary and secondary sources and original and derivative information and direct and indirect evidence. There was once "preponderance of evidence" and now there is "the genealogical proof standard" which splits hairs semantically so as not to make things too easy for anyone trying to prove who their great-great-great-grandpa is. The "preponderance of evidence" got left by the wayside a few years back because that only required a balance of the evidence to point to one guy, not ALL the evidence you can find (and you're really supposed to look, and look hard, and look at everything possible). The genealogical proof standard requires that, plus it expects you to explain why some idiot vicar wrote down Simon's mother's name as Catherine when she's Sally on every other document you can find that identifies his parents.
It's a good exercise. It's demanding and when you get done doing it, you feel reasonably confident that you've covered the bases.
Which brings me to methodology. That's a term that genealogists use when they talk to each other -- and especially when they try to teach those of us who are learning the ropes. It is a multi-syllabic word for "having a plan" and "figuring out what to do and then doing it." It's a great word.
I've learned a lot about genealogical methodology in the past few years -- especially in the last two because I've been taking some courses through the National Institute for Genealogical Studies affiliated with the University of Toronto as well as working on my own.
The methodology notion is one I've taken back to writing with me. It works in tandem with the gut instinct stuff that I ordinarily do. That was, for a long time, the way I did genealogy, too. Now I'm more systematic in my research, and while I'm not more systematic in my writing (see Spence and the park bench) I do have tools at my disposal for looking at the gut instinct stuff I come up with. I like the way they work together.
I feel like an old dog with a very useful new trick.
(however you spell it) and a whole bunch of other stuff that allows them to 'shorthand' when talking to each other.
Genealogy has its own language, too. There are, of course, pedigree charts and family group sheets and primary and secondary sources and original and derivative information and direct and indirect evidence. There was once "preponderance of evidence" and now there is "the genealogical proof standard" which splits hairs semantically so as not to make things too easy for anyone trying to prove who their great-great-great-grandpa is. The "preponderance of evidence" got left by the wayside a few years back because that only required a balance of the evidence to point to one guy, not ALL the evidence you can find (and you're really supposed to look, and look hard, and look at everything possible). The genealogical proof standard requires that, plus it expects you to explain why some idiot vicar wrote down Simon's mother's name as Catherine when she's Sally on every other document you can find that identifies his parents.
It's a good exercise. It's demanding and when you get done doing it, you feel reasonably confident that you've covered the bases.
Which brings me to methodology. That's a term that genealogists use when they talk to each other -- and especially when they try to teach those of us who are learning the ropes. It is a multi-syllabic word for "having a plan" and "figuring out what to do and then doing it." It's a great word.
I've learned a lot about genealogical methodology in the past few years -- especially in the last two because I've been taking some courses through the National Institute for Genealogical Studies affiliated with the University of Toronto as well as working on my own.
The methodology notion is one I've taken back to writing with me. It works in tandem with the gut instinct stuff that I ordinarily do. That was, for a long time, the way I did genealogy, too. Now I'm more systematic in my research, and while I'm not more systematic in my writing (see Spence and the park bench) I do have tools at my disposal for looking at the gut instinct stuff I come up with. I like the way they work together.
I feel like an old dog with a very useful new trick.
posted by Anne McAllister at 2:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home