<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16890" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Planning a national conference is a huge undertaking in any situation, but the difficulty is compounded when there is no clear-cut definition of the expertise of attendees being served.  Planning is relatively straightforward when planning for a specific class of professional.  When trying to be all things to all people, the result is doomed to be less than perfect.  In our case, we are trying to serve every level of genealogical practitioner.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Perhaps our tracks should focus on levels of expertise rather than segments of the profession (i.e., beginner, intermediate, advanced, professional, educator, etc.) - or at least one track per year could be dedicated to a level of expertise so attendees could plan their trips wisely.  Beginners might get the most help from that arrangement; however, it is my opinion that most people attending a national conference have spent some time and effort in research and are perhaps further along in their skill development than they may think.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>I personally do not care for the open forum style mentioned earlier.  It lends itself to abuse by particularly aggressive attendees who are determined to either receive personalized help or justify a position.  Such an offering would have to be conducted carefully with rules laid out in advance.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Wanda Samek</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=566012220-02102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> apgpubliclist-bounces@apgen.org [mailto:apgpubliclist-bounces@apgen.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>jfonkert@aol.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 02, 2009 2:47 PM<BR><B>To:</B> apgpubliclist@apgen.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APG Public List] National Genealogical Meetings<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>Jack and others:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, you are correct -- discussion of location and use of records cannot, and should not, be completely divorced from discussions of methodology and problem-solving.  We're talking about the level of emphasis of each of these things in a lecture -- be it 45 minutes, an hour or 90 minutes.  Obviously, no single lecture can teach every thing there is to know about analysis.  But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use short case studies to illustrate important concepts.  I don't think anyone is arguing for one kind of lecture over another -- rather, we're talking about an appropriate mix for a national conference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>National conferences are an expensive undertaking both for the sponsoring organizations and the registrants, so a discussion of the program options seems a good one to have.  Programs for 2010 are pretty well set by now, so any influence this discussion might have for future conferences will have little impact before 2011 or later.  As I said before, we aren't going to all agree, which is to say conference planners have a difficult job.  Back to work here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jay Fonkert, CG</DIV> <DIV>Saint Paul, MN<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Jack Butler <jackvbutler@jbandcb.com><BR>To: jfonkert@aol.com<BR>Cc: apgpubliclist@apgen.org<BR>Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 2:14 pm<BR>Subject: RE: [APG Public List] National Genealogical Meetings<BR><BR></DIV> <DIV id=AOLMsgPart_0_9f043d89-fa6d-49bd-a497-5b263222770a><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> <DIV>I guess that I must have a slightly different view - I don't think that the discussion of the location and use of records can be so easily divorced from a discussion of research methodology and problem-solving. Frankly, I don't think that I have ever seen a case study or  a lesson in problem solving that did not involve the location and use of records resources.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As always, of course, the devil is in the details - in this case, in the "use" of located records.  I suspect that what many people mean by "research methodology"  in this context is really data analysis - how one dissects and evaluates a record once that it has been found so that you can suck all of the nectar from it. Or how one distills and connects information from a series of seemingly disparate records to create a map or picture that makes sense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Analysis can be taught, but it is exceedingly difficult in the typical one hour lecture format.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jack Butler</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: verdana"> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>