Some have contested that RootsTech is killing smaller conferences and negatively impacting the attendance at genealogical events. Long before the RootsTech call for papers was released, I knew there was no need nor intention to compete with genealogical conferences. Although I allowed the program selection committees to make their own decisions about which classes they selected for the program, I did instruct them to this end: classes that were strictly genealogical in nature should not be included in the program. To better define this, I explained that genealogy has become so inseparably connected with the Internet, that a class on genealogy that mentions the use of a website (or multiple websites) did not qualify as a "technical" class.
With that background, I recommended that classes that were genealogical in nature and heavily weighted technical should be included in the technology user program. Also, classes that were technical, but not necessarily genealogical should also be included in the program.
One segment we did not attempt to address were those who needed technical instruction from the ground up. Despite our efforts to not focus on content for these individuals, we found that the demand for technical training among genealogists is so great, that even these technical fledglings were eager to attend to receive some technical education. Their need is so great, but the opportunities to receive beginning technical training on genealogical products is limited.
To those conferences whose attendance has waned, I would ask these questions:
- Is there an opportunity for providing hands-on training from the ground-up for this large number of technology beginners who have an interest in (or may be skilled at) genealogy?
- Are the classes being offered similar to, or the same as classes offered in the past? If so, are those classes still interesting to attendees?
- Do attendees want something new?
- What content would attendees value the most?
Based on my meager observations at RootsTech, the demand for technical training on websites, software applications, and even the basics of computer use are so great that there are many opportunities available to meet these needs. These do not require elaborate computer labs, just good instructors who are willing to take the time to prepare clear, detailed, and professional presentations, accompanied with detailed step-by-step instructions (that might take up more space than four pages).
I don't know the answers for each concern or question, but I do know that RootsTech was not intended to address all of the technical needs of genealogists, nor to replace genealogy conferences. Those pursuing a genealogical education will find themselves in want if they rely solely on RootsTech to provide them with that education. Conferences and educational opportunities like NGS complement RootsTech by providing the in-depth knowledge needed to navigate through electronic resources. Additional educational opportunities include, but are not limited to local and international genealogical and historical societies/organizations, FGS, IGHR SLIG, Family History Expos and many, many more.
As one who believes in letting users influence what we create for them, I am often heard to say, if you want to know what users want, ask them!
There is no way I would have travelled from Australia to the US for a regular genealogy conference, I can satisfy my appetite for these nearer to home.
ReplyDeleteRootstech, with its mix of tech and genie sessions, suited my particular interests. The range of topics was also of appeal to an international audience. The content of some other educational events you have mentioned is often UScentric.
Rootstech can provide both the skills training for beginners interested in technology and challenges for the tech-savvy who wish to further embrace the application of new tools in genealogy.
One downside of Rootstech 2011 was that the sessions were not clearly designated as to content level. I went to a couple of excellent classes where I learnt nothing as they were directed at beginners (you did provide classes for techie beginners). I felt cheated at these because I could have been elsewhere learning something and not just enjoying myself. There was one speaker I heard who should not have had a place at the conference. She was demonstrating software that belonged in the 20th century and the poor beginners in the class were drinking in her every word. I felt like standing up and shouting out "Don't listen,this is so old hat and counter-productive."
I enjoyed the roundtable sessions that discussed issues rather than promoting new products or demonstrating skills. The opportunity to discuss issues and ways to apply technology is invaluable.
I would have enjoyed an opportunity to complete a more comprehensive feedback document than the one that was used. I know many people don't share my enthusiasm for evaluative instruments but perhaps you could offer attendees the opportunity of completing either a short or more comprehensive evaluation.
The conference was superbly organised. You have already recognised some of the areas that need improvement. Rootstech 2012 should be awesome.
The opportunity Rootstech provided for me to meet and network with like-minded individuals was the highlight of the conference for me. I was honoured to be an official blogger (and Tweeter).
I hope to return for Rootstech 2012.
No way Rootstech is any competition. It is at the very best complimentary to exclusive genealogical conferences.
ReplyDeleteMy last post for the day...but just had to share a thought here. I'm lucky enough to attend a wide range of tech and genealogy events, some large, some small. Some regional, some local. Some USA, some International. RootsTech was (is) a different class of event in many respects. I really don't view it as competition, but can see how some might view it that way. I wondered myself at first...but I think that any event, if planned and marketed correctly with value to the attendees and the vendors, should do reasonably well. RootsTech is targeted at a niche cross-section and I think there are a growing number who appreciate the unique role that technology tools play in the pursuit of family history. I plan to be at future RootsTech events...not at the expense of other events, but in addition to other events.
ReplyDeleteRootsTech 2011 showed that there was a demand for technology instruction. Hopefully, societies and other conferences spot this opportunity and benefit from it.
ReplyDeleteRootsTech doesn't have to be the technology 101 teacher, nor will is replace other conferences. Just keep doing what you're doing. It's working (says this attendee who can't wait for 2012.)
RootsTech isn't a replacement for other genealogy conferences. FGS just needs to concentrate on doing "society" building work, not educating researchers. So combining NGS and FGS Conferences seems a responsible use of resources.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Myrt's comments on several levels.
ReplyDelete1. FGS and NGS will not be doing a combined conference anytime soon and it doesn't make as much sense as one would think. There are various reasons for this, many of which are too long for a comment on a blog post.
2. FGS does and is concentrating on society building work. See our recent release of Society Strategy Series papers (http://voice.fgs.org/2011/02/fgs-society-strategy-series-now.html) to the public. In addition we are working hard to incorporate technology into every sensible aspect including the upcoming FGS 2011 conference (syllabus on USB flash drive, free wireless interenet, more social media for advertising) as well as serving our member societies.
In addition, we should be focusing on the individual researcher and attracting them via the annual conference. These are the folks that will join the local and national genealogical societies. There is no reason why we can't and should speak to both audiences.
3. Please keep in mind that like NGS, FGS is a large organization that cannot easily maneuver overnight on certain issues. It has been just over a month since RootsTech. You will be seeing some important changes at FGS but I don't think it is fair for anyone to expect them overnight. These changes need to be well thought-out, sensible, and cost-effective for our members and attractive to the genealogy community that we serve.
I recently listened to a long complaint from a genealogical society member who was bemoaning the fact that her society did not see the need for a webpage or any web involvement. While this is not the attitude of many societies, they are, by and large, made up of the same type of people who are interested in genealogy. I recently did a list of all of the possible genealogy societies in Arizona for the Research Wiki and found a large majority of those listed had no web presence at all.
ReplyDeleteIn addition,almost every day I talk to researchers and would-be researchers who express a total lack of technical expertise. Many, probably most, of these people have no concept of the idea of joining a genealogical society and would not appreciate the benefits. But even those who would be possible society members are for the most part very technologically challenged.
I even find a measure of antagonism towards technology among a significant number of genealogists. That said, I agree that there is a huge need for technological instruction. I just finished spending an hour with a budding genealogist who was trying to load a file sent by a relative. She was happy to get the file working and learn something about the program, in this case, RootsMagic. She is not a candidate for society membership either.
RootsTech was the right conference at the right time to address all of these issues.
Great comment James - along the lines of a "web presence" not only can we as a community try to raise the "tech education level" of all community members, but I'm trying to get Illinois societies to at least adopt their county or local page on FamilySearch Wiki as a means of having a ready-made Internet presence.
ReplyDelete