Understanding Meanings in the Standards

Meaning and context matter and I was reminded of this while reading the Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition. Reading the Standards will enhance anyone's research, even if your personal goals are not certification or publication of material in any peer-reviewed journal. Just thinking about what is in the Standards will hopefully cause the reader to think more about their research and process and that is always beneficial.

 Page 17 in the Standards for Researching section of the Standards states:

"Understanding meanings. Genealogists correctly understand the meaning of all legible words, phrases, and statements in the sources they consult. Their understanding includes the meaning for the source's time and place."

It may be implied by the phrase "time and place," but I think I would add the something regarding the correct contemporary legal definition of any words used in any document created in a legal setting (court, probate, land records, etc.). There are words that specific meanings in a legal context that may have a slightly different meaning in another context (family letters, autobiographies, obituaries, etc.).

Readers of the Standards should think about what it is saying and analyze it---just like they would any document. If you've not taken a look at the Standards, consider doing so (it's not that expensive to order).Your research will be better for it. Even if you don't necessarily agree with every word on every page.

Independent Information Items and Unrelated Origins

I'm still reading Genealogy Standards and I'm still occasionally confused. 

Page 69 of the Board for Certification of Genealogists' Genealogy Standards defines "independent information items" as "sources or information items that have unrelated origins, thus reinforcing rather than duplicating each other."

I'll put aside my confusion with "sources or information items" (from my viewpoint, "sources" provide "information" so the use of the word "or" here slightly confuses me) and focus on "independent" as needing to have "unrelated origins."

What does "unrelated origins" actually mean and are any pieces of information really independent and of unrelated origin?

My grandmother, Ida (Trautvetter) Neill, was born in 1910 in Hancock County, Illinois. Her mother was there at the time; the doctor probably was there; and I'm guessing her father (and five older siblings) were in the general area as well. 

I have quite a few sources that include information on Grandma's birth, but if I group them based upon the likely informant, there's really three groups:

• Grandma's birth certificate--with information provided by the doctor
• Grandma's baptismal record--she was five year of age when baptized, with information provided by Grandma's parents
• Grandma's marriage record, death certificate, obituary, and other records created after Grandma's marriage where Grandma is the informant

Information Grandma provided about her birth is secondary information. She knew it because she was told it. So really there's just two groups sources containing information--the birth certificate with information provided by the doctor being one group and the other group being everything else (where either Grandma's parents provided the information or Grandma did--with all that information actually coming from Grandma's parents). 

It is the "independent" and "unrelated origins" that I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around, particularly the "unrelated origins." The doctor and Grandma's mother are independent of each other. Neither one had to tell the other that a baby was born to Ida (Sargent) Trautvetter on 1 September 1910. Ida (the mother) obviously knew it as did the doctor. Their knowledge of the birth is independent of each other. 

But is it of unrelated origin? 

Wouldn't people's recollections of most events have "related origins," since their knowledge of the event stems from their joint participation in the event? Two scientists working on different continents can have no contact with each other and independently discover the same result. Two people who have first hand knowledge of a baby's birth likely were both there at the time.

I completely understand determining (as best as possible) whether or not pieces of information have the same "points of origin." That's what I did with Grandma--there's her birth certificate with information which came from the doctor and what he remembered and then there's Grandma's christening record and information Grandma eventually provided, all of which likely originated with Grandma's parents (since they told her when she was born). 

But the doctor and great-grandma's knowledge of Grandma's birth does have "related origins" (at least to me) as they were at the same event. Their knowledge of her birth is not "unrelated." 

Maybe I'll just stick with "independent information items" and leave it at that.

Polya's Four-Step Process

I first learned of George Polya's 4-step process in a graduate course in math education and have been a proponent of it for genealogical research ever since. 

Polya had four steps to solving any problem:

1. Understand the problem--know all terms and state simple problem
2. Determine a solution--decide what to do
3. Execute solution procedure-do it
4. Evaluate-did you solve it?

It seems to me that genealogists can operate within this framework and still honor the essence of the BCG Genealogy Standards.

I've found this approach very helpful for over twenty years--I don't expect that to change.

Compiled Trees: Sources as a Filter

For some families and individuals, there are hundreds or thousands of online "trees." (An earlier post put out the thought prompt that should these trees be part of an "exhaustive search.") If one decides to use the trees as clues (and never as established fact), what are ways to sift out the reasonable from the not-so-reasonable.

This sifting is not an exact science. We are not mixing chemicals where there's pretty much a known reaction and response. This is more like surgery--sometimes you don't know what you are getting into until "you open things up."

If I'm using compiled trees for clues, I tend to loosely put the trees into three categories:

• no sources
• files as sources (stuff.GED, stuff2.FTW, stuff3,RTM, etc.)
• sources

The first two are frequently put aside but unsourced trees can be accurate. It just may be that compiler didn't want to share their sources. Of course, "sources" can vary widely as well as the research and analytical skills of the compiler. If I have many to sift through, I tend to initially concentrate on those compilations that include more material of a primary nature--courthouse records, vital records, etc. But it is an inexact science to be certain.

I'm interested in hearing thoughts on how others sift. 

And, as always, online compilations are best used as clues and suggestions, not as Gospel. 

Compiled Trees Part of an Exhaustive Search?

As I've been reading the BCG Genealogy Standards, I've been thinking about what part (if any) compiled trees, such as those on Ancestry.com and FamilySearch should play in an "exhaustive search," or in any search, period.

I'm interested to hear what readers think of the compiled trees. I'm certain more people use them than are willing to publicly admit it.

Genealogical Standards are Specific and Vague

I'm still reading Genealogy Standards. Reading it again is perhaps a more accurate word.

It is important for those who purchase the book, either as a part of their certification process or just as a part of their own genealogical education, that they remember what the Genealogy Standards is not. It is not a complete how-to book. It is not a list of sources. The Genealogy Standards is a list of benchmarks against which genealogical research is to be measured and compared.

It is not a specific how-to guide, but standards guidelines in any profession are not usually how-to guides. That's what classes and other trainings are for. It's short and to the point, more in the sense of reminders for what a researcher should be doing instead of a specific list of sources to check.

I don't read Genealogy Standards with the intent of seeing a list of suggestions that will help me with my Rufus D. Stephens, my Benjamin Butler, or my Hinrich Mueller. However, as I read the standards, particularly the ones in regards to documentation and research, I should be asking myself:

• have I done that when I researched?
• have I analyzed each piece of information that I already have?
• was I thinking about those writing suggestions when I put together a summary of my research?

There's more to the standards than that, but it's a start. 

The writing standards are helpful even if the only person for whom you are writing is yourself.

If there is something in the Genealogy Standards that you do not understand, ask or post the question to a mailing list or a genealogical research group. There may even be a definition for a term with which you do not agree entirely (I personally don't view evidence as the "answer," tentative or otherwise [p. 67 Genealogy Standards] to a question, but that's a subject for another post). It is ok if you don't agree with everything. Your genealogical world will not end. Standards are standards, not edicts. My personal view point of the Genealogy Standards is that reading them can enhance your research.

It's also my personal view point that concern about standards, research accuracy, and documentation does not make one an "elitist genealogist." Elitist genealogists are ones who do not want to admit their conclusions may be incorrect and who refuse to listen to others. That attitude has absolutely nothing to do with reading the Genealogy Standards. 

Benjamin Butler, Grandma, and Exhaustive Searches

"Reasonably exhaustive research---emphasizing original records...for all evidence that might answer a genealogist's question...." (p. 1  of 50th anniversary edition of Board for Certification of Genealogists' Genealogy Standards ).

I am inclined to think that "reasonably exhaustive searches" are very relative to the problem at hand. If I am searching for the death date of my grandmother in Bradenton, Florida, in 2008, how exhaustive should that search be? Do I need to see "everything" such as:

• death certificate
• funeral home records
• business records of the "retirement community" where she lived
• social security death index entry
• tombstone

In the case of my grandmother, I may have an interest in all those records, just because of "what else they might say." But if I'm documenting the death of a more distant cousin who also died in Florida in 2008, do I need all that? 

Probably not. There's the issue of time and money. In most cases in this time period, the death certificate or maybe the social security death index entry will suffice. Could they be incorrect? Yes. But as long as I completely cite the source I have used someone else will be able to judge the reliability of my information. I just don't think it is possible to research "everything" on "everyone." There's a limit to how much I can spend, how much time I have to research, and how much information I can process. 

And in the case of Grandma, how much of that information is really repeated? Most likely (with the exception of transcription or typographical errors) the information on the death certificate, funeral home records, social security death index, and tombstone all have the same "original" informant. 

Are there cases where I want to go totally all out to be exhaustive?

Yes. 

I'll get every piece of information I can on Benjamin Butler who was born about 1819 in New York State and lived in Michigan, Ontario, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri before dying in the 1880s. Benjamin is an entirely different problem in an entirely different time period. In his case, when I think of an exhaustive search, I think of totally, get everything, no stone unturned, try and research every neighbor and associate kind of research.

That's not necessary on Grandma or on most people who died in 2008. Some perhaps, but all. 

When records are scant, less direct, and less detailed, exhaustion is important. I don't think it's always necessary on more recent individuals. But like everything else--what's "exhaustive" is situational.

Exhaustive searches on people who don't need exhaustive searches leaves my brain and my wallet exhausted.

And that makes it more difficult to research the early 19th century New York natives like good ol' Benjamin.

Why I'm Reading Genealogy Standards

Not every genealogist needs to be certified or wants to be certified.

And that's ok.

I've been reading the Board for Certification of Genealogists' Standards over the past few weeks as a part of my progress towards submitting my portfolio for certification. I've blogged about it a little bit and as time goes forward, there will be more posts about various aspects of the book. There's material in the standards that can help any genealogist who would like to enhance their research skills. Genealogists can benefit from the content of the book even if they have no intention of becoming certified. Just reading the standards and thinking about what various aspects mean for you and your research is a good thing.

Whenever a genealogist thinks about how they research, it has the chance of making them a better researcher. Whether they decide to become certified or not.

There's not just information in the book about how to meet the "genealogical standards." There is also a section about what is expected of a professional genealogist and that is good content for anyone who is thinking about hiring a genealogist to research part of their family tree. Does a genealogist have to be certified to be a professional genealogist? No. Can a professional be extremely competent if she is not certified? Absolutely.

Reading the Standards provides the opportunity to fine-tune my research process. That's true even if I don't agree with every word on every page.

I'll be creating more posts about the Standards over the next few months. Stay tuned.

When to Quit

Immigrant trunk of Ahltie[sic] F. Goldenstein, in possession
of Michael John Neill

I posted this image to the Facebook page for "Genealogy Tip of the Day" and remarked that anyone who had time could search for Altje Goldenstein on a US passenger manifest because I had not found her.

And it got me to thinking:

"When is it time to quit?"

It's a good question, particularly when the record or document for which we are searching may not answer any "burning questions" or has little chance of shedding much new light on the person of interest. If we are looking for something more out of personal curiosity than of necessity, how much search is required? In the case of Altje, her life is well-documented in Germany and in the United States. It would be "nice" to have the manifest (after all, it may list neighbors or close associates), but how much time should be spent before I decide it simply is "time to quit?"

The Board for Certification of Genealogists' Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition may have a section on "when to quit," but I certainly didn't see it. While the Standards has a glossary, "when to quit" isn't one of the defined terms and there was not an index I could consult.

There is a paragraph in the Standards on "Terminating the plan" (page 15), but it really did not address the issue of when to quit with much detail. Running out of money is pretty self-evident and running out of time can easily be the result of deadlines imposed by editors, publishers and others outside the genealogist's control. Those want their personal research to be done in the spirit of the Standards have different limitations than researchers working for hire. But they do have limitations (sleep for one) and need to know when they've effectively done all they could.

Part of the answer is a research log--a detailed one. The research log will not tell you when to quit, but it will at least let you have an inventory of what you searched, how it was searched, when it was searched, and what the results of that search were.

As multiple databases and websites offer acces to the same information (with perhaps different indexes) and occasionally modify those indexes, the name of the website, specific database, and date of search must be a part of your research log.

The way in which you searched (first name and last name variations, wildcards used, whether Soundex was used) is also a part of that research log.

The results are as well.

For Altje, it may be time to quit when, I have:

• accessed arrivals into all US ports that accepted passenger ships during the time period she arrived.
• if a manual search of those manifests is not possible (or practical)--that's a lot of pages to read one page at a time, my searches of online indexes to those manifests should include:
• all name variants used
• time periods used
• ports searched
• websites used--with database titles

There's not a real "good" answer as to when it is time to quit in this case--the search for Altje is a personal one, given that I have her immigrant trunk and that she is my great-great-grandfather's sister. However, when I've searched all reasonable name variants, in the appropriate time period for all ports that have extant records, it may be time to stop. Yes, I would like to know if she travelled with others from her village, but given that I already know when and where she was born and who who parents were, that information isn't going to help me as much as it might in other cases. 

The only thing I have not personally done is to search the manifests manually--simply because I do not have time. The detailed research log is something I can review to determine if there is something I missed or if a new database or index becomes available. I could also have another researcher look over my research log to see if there is something I missed. 

There are always ways I could broaden my search of database. The drawback to this is that the number of matches grows with each result.

The Standards indicates that "no other resources" to consult is another reason to terminate the plan. That's not really true in my case either as there are the original manifests. The Standards makes the excellent point that terminating the search will not lead to "genealogical proof." This is usually true. In my case there is indirect evidene that Altje immigrated given that she was born in Germany and married and died in the west-central Illinois.

For me the time to "terminate the plan" is when the perceived benefits of locating the record are less than the amount of time required to locate the actual record. I can easily show that Altje immigrated using indirect evidence. I just can't find direct evidence. That would be on the manifest.

One simply cannot locate every item one wishes one had. And there's not always a clear cut answer of "yes, you've done enough."

Struggling Over Evidentiary Answers

I've finally had time to take a look at my (Board for Certification of Genealogists) BCG Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition. 

Like many genealogists, I struggle with definitions. Perhaps I am overly burdened by my background and one too many semesters of teaching the basics of mathematical logic and set theory.

We'll try and make some of that struggle here--publicly. The theory is that if I'm struggling then at least one other person probably is too.

On page 67, of  Genealogy Standards "evidence" is defined partially as "...a research question's answer..."

I may be confused, but I was under the impression that evidence was the information we chose to use from sources in the construction of a genealogical proof. I didn't think that the evidence was the answer.

It may be splitting hairs, but I don't think evidence is the "answer" by itself. There's more to reaching a conclusion that simply compiling evidence. Evidence is the various information we use in the construction of a proof to arrive at an answer. Evidence may be direct, indirect, or negative and any one piece of evidence may not provide the answer (in most challenging and interesting problems it does not). In the case of indirect and negative evidence, one piece of "evidence" does not usually explicitly state anything--most specifically not what we are trying to "prove." With indirect evidence an analysis including additional unstated information must be included to reach the "indirect statement" and with negative evidence an analysis including what's "negative" must be included with the negative evidence. Direct evidence does state something specifically, but even direct evidence may not completely state that which we are trying to prove.

I may be debating the number of angels on the head of a pin, but thinking about terms, definitions, and genealogical proof is not necessarily a bad thing.

And onward it goes.

Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition

I've finally gotten around to ordering Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, the manual printed by the Board for Certification of Genealogists. It has a release date of tomorrow.

As regular readers know, I'm working on BCG certification. My original copy of the Standards manual is pretty well-worn. I tend to make notations and comments in paper versions of things, both things I want to remember and things I originally don't understand. The new edition won't be any different. I tend to view books of this types as "learning texts" to be used in a way that increases my understanding.

When my copy of  Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition arrives, we'll be making comments about various parts of it. I've found reading it over helpful in my certification work. Any comments made will be my opinions and may not necessarily agree with the BCG viewpoint.

And even if you're not considering certification, thinking about how you research and how you can improve your research is never a bad thing. Even if you think you'll never take genealogy "that seriously," learning about methods can only help you research.

And isn't that we all want?

Note: We'll have the comments feature turned on whenever the Genealogy Standards: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition is discussed. Get your own copy and feel free to take part in the discussion--or just read along.