Furthering the discussion on certification

Craig Manson has written a very entertaining and provocative post entitled "The Discussion about Standards, Certification, Maturity, etc.: Useful or Divisive? Elitist Envy or Intellectual Inevitability?" I really enjoyed to the mock court room examination of the proposed expert witness on the subject of genealogy. The hypothetical testimony points out several serious questions; Can a genealogist (or anyone) become an "expert" merely by doing what many genealogists do all the time? Is there a need for formal education in the area of genealogical investigation to qualify someone for the "profession?" Is there genealogy a profession at all? Does that fact that there are two self-appointed accrediting organizations make their members better qualified merely by reason of their membership? What is the difference (or is there a difference?) between the two genealogical accreditation organizations and something like the lawyers' state bar associations? Is there a need to protect the unwary genealogical services consumer? Does the fact that a researcher belongs to the Association of Professional Genealogists or any other organization protect the consumer of their services? Does the fact that a genealogist is either accredited or certified make any difference in the level of their "professional ability?" Is that difference any greater than belonging to or being certified by something like the National Dog Groomers Association? (I am not denigrating the National Dog Groomers Association, I am merely pointing out that many different types of employment have registration and certification organizations. See Workshop and Certification Guidelines of the National Dog Groomers Association of American, Inc.). It is not necessary to belong to the national organization to be a dog groomer, any more than it is necessary to belong to either of the national genealogical accreditation organizations.
Read more...