Is Genealogy Broken? If so, can it be fixed?

One overall impression I got from listening to presentations at #RootsTech 2014 and reading blog reports about the Conference was that somehow genealogy was "broken" and needs to be fixed. This impression comes from a variety of statements concerning the following:

• Lack of involvement in "genealogy" by younger age groups
• Failure of "genealogy" to produce or collect stories and photos of ancestors
• Genealogists make genealogy appear difficult and unfriendly
• Genealogy is out-of-date, stodgy and unattractive

I have used this analogy before, but it is as if genealogy is somehow a product that has sat on the shelf too long and needs to be replaced with a newer, more attractive product that will fly off the shelves. The new product is called "family history" and it is coming out in a new package with new features and definitely replaces the old product. 

At the other extreme, we have a significant number of genealogists who are concerned that "genealogy" is not accepted as a serious academic pursuit by universities and colleges. They focus on the problems as follows:

• Genealogy is too populist and hobby-like
• The entire community needs more academic rigor and attention to sources
• All aspects of genealogy need definable standards 
• The genealogical community is drowning in a sea of mediocre family trees

Are we as genealogists involved in a rather simple manufacturing process that is designed to produce a product or are we serious researchers involved in a misunderstood, complex and challenging intellectual discipline?

It is interesting to me that in both cases, the attitude is that there is something wrong with genealogy that needs to be changed so that it will appeal to the youth and at the same time be accepted as a valid academic discipline. Aren't we talking about two different things here? Aren't the goals of the two extremes going in opposite directions? I have been trying to think of an analogous example that might work to explain the issues, but nothing seems to fit. My perception is that the genealogical community is relatively, very small. There have been several attempts by bloggers to "define" the community and most of them acknowledge that there are layers of interest starting on the edge with interest in family and family history to a central core of professionals who are totally immersed in genealogical activities and research.

Are the extremes reconcilable? Why is there a strong undercurrent of angst over the "problem that youth become involved in genealogy?" Are we really concerned about preserving our family heritage or is genealogy about numbers? Going back to the product analogy, is genealogy something that can be easily defined and packaged? Have we gotten to the point where "genealogy" is like a modern electronic device that economically cannot be fixed and must simply be thrown away and replaced with a newer, more functional model?

For what it is worth, my perception is that genealogy is alive and well, thank you, and there is nothing about the pursuit that particularly needs fixing. Genealogists pretty much know what they are trying to accomplish and the central core of genealogists all have a pretty good understanding of how to go about doing genealogy. Promoting genealogy as easy and fun, to make it more attractive, is self-defeating. Preserving our cultural, religious and social heritage is important, but blame for our collective failure to be involved with that heritage cannot be laid at the feet of the genealogists. In fact, the main reason we have so many stories and photos to preserve is due mainly to those same people who are attracted to and involved in the core pursuit of genealogy. Adding more people as collectors of the heritage is definitely helpful but does not equate to producing more genealogists. 

What we do need is a realization by those who would fix the genealogical community that they cannot throw away the old product. Doing historical research is a mostly a very solitary, demanding, intellectually stimulating, intensive, engrossing, overwhelmingly difficult and very academic discipline. It cannot be sugar-coated for broad public consumption. If you want to view genealogy as a manufacturing process, then you need to recognize that increasing production involves helping the serious, central core of genealogists to do their job more efficiently. Rather than being denigrated, they should be allowed to do what they do as efficiently as possible even if some of us are old, cranky and difficult to deal with. Oh, by the way, some recognition of the amount of work done by the genealogists might help also. Why would the youth want to become like the old genealogists who nobody talks to and all avoid? Think about it.