Now that we understand the genealogists’ skills, we can profitably consider their learning techniques. To explore and verify the context in which these working practices are played out (the working environment, research habits and aspirations), I consulted 100 genealogists. These anonymous respondents were self-selecting, and their replies were not weighted, so nothing is presented here as a rigorous survey. Rather, it is offered as evidence of a broad consultation to underpin what might otherwise have been subjective generalisations. Analysis of these responses was supported by further personal interviews.

Responses from 100 family historians indicated that 91% work alone and at home where 27% have a dedicated family history room. Only 2 respondents said that they worked mainly in a group. Only one respondent thought that genealogy’s main attraction was an opportunity to meet other people.

67% had not received formal pre-school education. (During the 1950s and 1960s less than 13% of children in England received pre-school education; 16 this figure matched closely the experience of those of appropriate age in my consultation.) This suggests that the learning environment preferred by genealogists matches the self-contained, self-directed comforts in which they would have initially experimented with skills like evaluation and hypothesis. Taken together, these responses suggest what Mezirow would have called an instrumental learning style -where learners develop through experience and task orientated problem solving, without the need to negotiate space, time or a licence to speak up. ((17) This does not rule out the alternative, communicative learning, but shows that the skills of a genealogist can be safely developed in an instrumental atmosphere.

Following Vygotsky, who insisted that learning theory should concern itself more with “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers,” (18) the theorists might suggest that many genealogists are short changing themselves. I am not arguing that one learning route is better than any other. Rather, I note that the genealogist may be drawn to, and function well when, working in their own environment.

If genealogists flourish as part of a cottage industry, how do they respond to opportunities to share their product. 75% of genealogists in my consultation had shared at least part of their pedigree on line. But my consultation indicated that a generally low level of genealogists complied with Society of Genealogists’ principles of citing primary sources when presenting their work (only 45% claimed to have quoted primary sources in more than 75% of their work). From many, including those whose responses generally reflected a studious approach to their subject, this shortcoming seemed to emerge as an almost guilty secret. Only 20% considered that the body of their work had been peer-reviewed; even within that group some allowed a low bar to define that. 40% of respondents who said their work had been peer reviewed conceded that only 50% or less of their work cited primary sources. (A repeated approach was that mere publication facilitated peer review, even where sources were not cited, and no feedback was given.) In some cases, questions about sources and peer review were seen as an unfair challenge. This resonates with Houle’s work in the 1970s. “Since independent study is, by definition, a wholly self-guided way of designing and controlling an educational activity it can be examined in depth only by one who analyses his own experience  or that reporting to him.”(19)

This is probably the most criticised area of genealogy but James, Holford and Griffin offer further balance to the argument, warning of limited effectiveness when the “teacher is seeking to control the student’s learning to produce the desired results. This approach produces outcomes which are conformist and to a certain extent rely on those in authority who decide what form of behaviour is correct. It may also be claimed that this approach is not very efficient in the long run because it has not encouraged learners to think for themselves but only to learn to conform to the accepted position.” (20)

Is it fair to criticise genealogists for the little attention given to standards of practice? 54% of my consultation described family history as a hobby, while a further 23% preferred to regard it primarily as fun. Only 14% saw it primarily as an opportunity for personal development and just 8% viewed it as work. Nowhere have most family tree builders sworn to improve either genealogical practice or the reputation of genealogy – they simply want to know who their ancestors were.

17 Mezirow, J. Transformative Dimensions of Aduly Learning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

18  Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. MA: Harvard UP.

19  Houle, C. (1972) The Design of Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

20  James, P. Holford, J. & Griffin C. (2003) The Theory and Practice of Learning. London: Routledge.