Through a recent blog post on
Tonia's Roots I have found the
Genealogical Maturity Model on The Ancestry Insider. While I don't agree with everything on it, I think it will be useful to help me identify areas of my genealogical work that could use some improvement.
So, here's my assessment as of right now, leaving out the Conclusion Trees section, which I find unpleasantly elitist (and apparently I'm not alone in that):
Sources
# |
Level |
Sources |
Check |
1. |
Entry |
Typically relies on compiled genealogies. |
|
2. |
Emerging |
Mostly relies on compiled genealogies and online sources. |
|
3. |
Practicing |
Uses a limited number of record types and repositories. Mostly relies on
online and microfilmed sources. |
x |
4. |
Proficient |
Uses a wide variety of record types. Often contacts record custodians to
obtain copies of high-quality sources. |
|
5. |
Stellar |
Insightfully pursues research at multiple, targeted repositories, making use
of a plethora of records and record types. "Burned counties" are not
roadblocks. |
|
The number of record types I use is increasing all the time, but I still don't use much that isn't available online. The parish records I'm looking at now for my One Place Study are probably the first offline records I've used.
Citations
# |
Level |
Citations |
Check |
1. |
Entry |
Captures URLs for online sources and citations for published
sources. |
x |
2. |
Emerging |
Increasingly captures necessary information for manuscript sources. |
|
3. |
Practicing |
Typically produces complete source citations. |
|
4. |
Proficient |
Gives complete and accurate source citations including provenance and quality
assessment. |
|
5. |
Stellar |
Overcomes limitations of genealogical software to create well organized,
industry standard reference notes and source lists. |
|
OK, I admit it. Most of my citations are just links to the record online. I really should work on this.
Information
# |
Level |
Information |
Check |
1. |
Entry |
Typically does not realize the need to judge information quality and has no
basis for doing so. |
|
2. |
Emerging |
Emerging realization that information quality differs. Muddles evaluation by
thinking of primary/secondary sources instead of primary/secondary information,
leading to muddled evaluation when sources contain both. |
|
3. |
Practicing |
Judges information by source type, informant knowledge, and record timing.
Applies "primary/secondary" to information instead of sources. |
x |
4. |
Proficient |
Additionally, learns history necessary to recognize and evaluate all explicit
information in a source. |
|
5. |
Stellar |
Additionally, utilizes implicit information in a source. Finds information in
cases like illegitimacy that stump most researchers. |
|
Evidence
# |
Level |
Evidence |
Check |
1. |
Entry |
Limited understanding of evidence and the role it plays. Typically ignores
conflicting evidence. |
|
2. |
Emerging |
Captures direct, supporting evidence and increasingly depends upon
it. |
|
3. |
Practicing |
Additionally, captures directly conflicting evidence. |
|
4. |
Proficient |
Additionally, recognizes and captures indirect, supporting evidence. |
x |
5. |
Stellar |
Additionally, recognizes and captures indirect, conflicting
evidence. |
|
Conclusions
# |
Level |
Conclusions |
Check |
1. |
Entry |
In the absence of analysis, reaches conclusions by instinct. |
|
2. |
Emerging |
Learning to evaluate the quality of sources, information, and evidence.
Emerging ability to resolve minor discrepancies. |
|
3. |
Practicing |
Additionally, resolves conflicting evidence or uses it to disprove prevalent
opinion. Usually applies correct identity to persons mentioned in
sources. |
x |
4. |
Proficient |
Additionally, when necessary creates soundly reasoned, coherently documented
conclusions utilizing direct and indirect evidence. |
|
5. |
Stellar |
Additionally: Publishes clear and convincing conclusions. Teaches and
inspires others. |
|
Overall Level
Category |
Level |
Sources |
3 |
Citations |
1 |
Information |
3 |
Evidence |
4 |
Conclusions |
3 |
AVERAGE |
2.8
|
So, just under Practicing. Not quite the result I was hoping for! Obviously, citations are what I need to work on the most. So as a next step, I think I'll look up what citation formats are standard in the genealogical community, and start applying them to my citations on WikiTree. That, and my
New Year's resolutions...
No comments:
Post a Comment