You know me: the genealogy guinea pig. I'll try anything to burrow around an ancestral brick wall. Many of those attempts lead to dead ends, but for some, I come out in victory. Experiment successful!
With experiences like that, you might not be surprised to hear that I spend a lot of time helping others wander through their own genealogical maze, hunting for the ancestral big cheese. Some of that time is in formal classroom settings and through teaching lessons on specific topics, but other times, I'm just as likely to be meeting one on one with friends at a coffee shop (with a decent wifi connection, of course) or even via online sessions, chasing our ancestral mysteries.
Considering that, I was rather crestfallen to see a Substack article recommended by other bloggers on "Why Most Genealogy Advice Wastes Your Time." Well, I certainly hope my advice doesn't waste others' time; if it does, it wastes my time, also.
I had to give that one some thought. During that same week, it so happened that I ended up involved with several such advice-giving sessions, not just in genealogy, but in other realms as well. I met with a fellow researcher one on one to tackle some problems, held an online DNA special interest group meeting, joined with other researchers in a family history writing group, made a presentation to members of a genealogy society, and led my own society's meeting, in addition to wandering around the back corners of Polish records at FamilySearch.org.
But did that help anybody? That's the key question I glean from the Substack article posed by Denyse Allen. I've got to admit, after all the genealogical effort of the past week—in addition to observing a class taught by someone else—I have to concede she has a point. But not, perhaps, in the exact way she means it.
Over this weekend, I watched someone else teach a class on self-improvement which was free to attend. Being held on a sunny Saturday morning, perhaps it was no surprise to see the event was sparsely attended. I watched as people sat, taking notes, and wondered how many would take a look at those notes again, let alone actually put the advice into practice. I think we've all been dulled by the traditional classroom experience, lulled into listening, then thinking the end of class equates with reaching the finish line.
On the contrary, it's just the beginning. It's what we do next that determines whether we've learned or not.
Stepping back and taking a sweeping view of the evolution of educational techniques—at least for adult learning styles—we are far more suited to collaborative attempts at problem solving. The main reason for this, though, is not that we thrive on chaos, but that we can coach each other as we move, step by step, through that dark tunnel towards the light at the end.
We don't, as it turns out, learn as much from massive data dumps—where our brains hardly get the space to burp—as we do from incremental experiments in progress. We try this, test it out. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't—and then we try something else to solve that same problem.
We're guinea pigs at work, testing the limits of our hypotheses, one by one, to follow the trail to the answer we seek. As I've mentioned in the past when explaining my position as unofficial genealogy guinea pig, learning can be awkward, especially when it is observed in real time. After all, to make progress, you have to admit you don't know something. That's the realization where learning begins.
I've often wished I could change the format of some of the teaching sessions I've done for genealogy. If I could have my way—meaning space to experiment, and resources to make it possible—I'd much prefer putting learning into an engaging environment. A place where we had the luxury of testing ideas out and failing—and then taking the time to make adjustments and try again.
Traditional learning has one assumption baked into the formula: you learn in class; where you apply it is on you, at some other time. Just not now.
Whether I can replicate the genealogy guinea pig in such an experimental classroom, I don't know. It does, for instance, call for participants who are willing to take the time to try new things in real time, right there while we're meeting. And then share, reflecting on what went wrong, and what can be done instead—always moving forward.
Maybe that type of experimental lab needs to not be called a classroom. Nor should the session be called a class. Workshop, maybe. Or perhaps something entirely new. Whatever it turns out to be, hopefully it will be the catalyst to get people out of that listening-only mode into a doing mindset.
Genealogy, after all, can truly turn out to be grunt work. And we all need some encouragement to get through those rough spots in the genealogy puzzle. But on the other side, finding that answer! That's the reward which inspires the genealogy happy dance, and we really need someone to share that moment with us. Why not the people who've been working through the process with us all along?
I feel for you and agree with what you've said. Like you, however, I do understand some of what Denyse was saying. I don't, however, use AI anywhere near the way she does. Not only does it mean I'm not using my own brain to do these tasks, but the high environment cost makes me shudder.
ReplyDeleteAt the library where I work, I meet monthly with my group of "Ancestor Hunters" and try hard to find specific topics beyond the beginner level, show a video or two and then engage the group members in discussion. I know for certain that at least a few members have taken specific techniques and applied them to their work.
In the end, it's up to each of us to find the method that works for us and engage in, as you say, that grunt work. Most genealogy, and I point out to people, involves hours of reading through record sets, pinpointing one that applies to an ancestor, downloading, reading, transcribing, analyzing, and drawing a conclusion. Rinse and repeat until we have gathered enough informtion that then needs correlating.
I read specific genealogy blogs and watch specific genealogists on YouTube because I DO learn from them. For me, the system Denyse dismissed did work, but then I started as someone already trained as a historian, so maybe that's why.
Tess, thank you for your well-thought-out response. Agreed, you've put a lot of time into the persistent research that leads to the answers you seek--and, thankfully, you've shared that experience and knowledge with others in a way that encourages them to do the same.
DeleteWhile you thought that perhaps your training as a historian may have given you a leg up on such research skills, I do have to say most of the people I've worked with seem to have been well educated. Or perhaps it is more to the point to say they have enough education to know how to find the answers they seek.
I have been thinking about this topic quite a bit this week, inspired by some conversations here in my own local genealogy circles. I'll mention this a bit in a post this weekend. This is a conversation worth continuing.