RootsTech 2014

Some people eat, sleep and chew gum, I do genealogy and write...

Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Heart of the Story -- The Oral Interview

This is a masterful example of an oral interview. If the story is the heart of genealogy, then the oral interview is the heart of the story. Think of what is lost without the sound and music of this wonderful lady. Then consider how many people you know who have their own stories. Then think what would happen if that story was lost. Get yourself an inexpensive digital records and sit down and preserve the stories.

It might be a good idea to be prepared. Take time to talk to the person who has the story. Help them feel comfortable with the process and let them handle your recorder. Make sure you get their permission to conduct the interview and have it preserved. In my current round of oral interviews, I have arranged with the L. Tom Perry Special Collections Library at Brigham Young University to archive, transcribe and catalog the interviews. This can be one interview or a whole series on a specific topic.

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of websites dedicated to oral interviews. I suggest looking at the sites that are academically involved in collecting history and folkways. My favorite is the Library of Congress, The American Folklife Center. I have been listening to parts of the Alan Lomax Collection since I was a teenager. Another one of my favorites is Studs Terkel. On the radio for over 45 years, to quote his website, Studs Terkel discussed every aspect of 20th-century life with movers, shakers, artists, celebrities, and working folks. From civil rights to labor to jazz, his work spanned an impressive array of topics and figures. The current archive of his "interviews" is on Popup

Don't get bogged down in dates, names and places. Tell your prospective interviewee that you are interested in stories. Don't stop them once they get started and stop asking questions as long as they talk. Do not ask for names and dates, ask for memories. I only wish I had done more interviewing and less talking.

For more information see the following documents:

Don't get wrapped up in technique. Just let them talk.

Citations: Rules or Principles?

As genealogists are we governed by rules or principles? However, upon reflection, I guess the proper question to ask is whether we are governed at all? We recently did some construction, finishing off our basement. All through the process we had a series of inspections. When the job was completed, there were several items that needed to be fixed before the final inspection. Analogously, my blog is constantly inspected and reader submit comments requesting corrections all the time. But in my genealogy work, there are no periodic inspections unless I share my files with others, I get no feedback at all.

It seems to me that even if we all could somehow agree that there are certain rules and/or principles that apply to genealogy, there is no enforcement mechanism at all and any such rules etc. would be observed only by the most assiduously competent and careful. But there is a segment of the genealogical community that operates as though there were carefully crafted universal rules and further, that those rules apply to all genealogists no matter their degree of involvement or skill. Interestingly, these self-appointed guardians of the genealogical norm, cannot seem to agree very much among themselves as to the content of the rules or even which of the rules apply.

Nowhere in the realm is this lack of uniformity more obvious than in the world of citations of authorities and sources. It thought it would be interesting to look at some of the guidelines for submission of articles to the more prominent genealogical publications and see how much uniformity exists. Who would know more about the "rules of citations" than the editors of the genealogical society magazines?

My first example is the Guidelines for Writers published by the National Genealogical Society (NGS). Hmm. The Guidelines for Writers is very short and concise and any reference to citations is missing. The only statement about format is the following:
NGS Magazine reserves the right to edit all submissions to conform to house style and needs. The NGS Magazine editor agrees to make every reasonable effort to make available to the Writer the final, edited version of the article while there is still time to make corrections.
That seems fair enough, I would suppose that if you were too far off base, they would reject the article altogether or tell you to rewrite it with some kind of citations. If I were going to submit an article, I would probably look at several back issues of the magazine and try to emulate the format.

Next in line is The Genealogist, a publication of the American Society of Genealogists. Their guidelines are even more terse than the NGS.
The editors are particularly interested in single family studies and compiled family genealogies, single-line descents, and articles that solve a specific problem while demonstrating a technique for solution of similar problems. The editors will not draw arbitrary geographic or chronological limits for articles but will continue to exclude queries, which have a proper place in many other publications.
They rely on sample articles entirely, which, by the way, are full of lovely footnotes.

Moving right along, I found a more fertile field in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about certification from the Board for Certification for Genealogists. They even include a definition of genealogy which seems very helpful. They answer the question very specifically:
8. Question: What is the genealogical standard for documentation (source citation)? 
Answer: Every statement of “fact” that is not “public knowledge” is expected to carry its own specific citation of source. (For instance, a statement that the Civil War began in 1861 would be “public knowledge” because that date is easily found in an array of sources; no source needs to be cited. However, a statement that a certain individual enlisted in a specific unit on a certain day is not public knowledge and must be supported by a reliable source.) Undocumented works are usable for clues but are never considered “proof.”
They also refer potential applicants to a "Style Guide." The Style Guides section of the FAQ are also instructive:
41. Question: Does it really matter what “style guides” I use for writing and citing? As style and reference guides, Genealogy Standards recommends Chicago Manual of Style's ("humanities style,” not “scientific style”) and Evidence Explained! Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (which covers many original record types not handled by CMS). I have published genealogical articles in two major peer-reviewed journals, one in genealogy and one in another academic field. Each of those had its own preferred style. Would those peer-reviewed articles be acceptable "sample work products" to submit at renewal? 
Answer: Different journals, publishers, and fields do have different style preferences that reflect their needs—often economy or certain situations that exist in their research areas. When submitting work to any press, writers are expected to follow the prescribed style of that press. However, even when major scholarly journals publish abbreviated citations, the research they publish will have undergone extensive peer-review and fact-checking to ensure that it meets standards of the field. 
BCG welcomes work samples of a genealogical nature that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Several examples, from a variety of genealogical journals, appear at this "Sample Work Products" link. Your judges will make their own evaluations of everything you submit, based upon their own expertise, but they would not "penalize" you for the fact that your published material reflects the particular house-style of a journal. In order for them to better evaluate your own work, most judges would prefer that you also include a copy of your manuscript, as you submitted it, as well as the final, edited publication. 
When you submit either unpublished work or published work samples from genealogical magazines that allow you to choose your own presentation styles, BCG's judges would expect you to cite your sources fully by the standards of its recommended guides.
So, the answer is The Chicago Manual of Style, currently in its 16th edition (I realized I am one edition behind in my own copy)

The Chicago Manual of Style. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Mills, Elizabeth Shown. Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace. Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. Co, 2012.

which is currently in its second edition (another wake up call, I have the first edition). 

Of course, I already knew that different journals, publishers and fields have different style preferences when I began this post. If I continued on with my examples, all it show would be that each one of the publications is different than the others. 

So, here I am, a lone genealogist out here in genealogyland and what am I supposed to do with my citations? What if I have absolutely no aspirations of ever publishing anything anywhere much less in some prestigious genealogy journal? How am I even going to be able to begin to understand or even become aware of the hundreds of pages of instructions in the the two books cited above? Maybe I begin to wonder why there is such a big deal made about citations at all if even the various organizations and publications of genealogy stuff can't agree? 

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Storytelling, Oral Histories, and More

We had a storytelling festival in Mesa, Arizona for a few years. Some of the local people got together and organized a wonderful event with storytellers from all over the country. After a couple of very successful years, the event was turned over to the City of Mesa who managed to kill off the whole event in a couple of years. In Utah, the Timpanogos Story Telling Festival has been going now for 25 years and it is a major community event and attracts people from all over the world. This is the first time we have had the opportunity to attend in Orem, Utah and we were super impressed with the organization and quality of the event. The City of Orem and many, many local and national businesses are sponsors. There were hundreds of school children bussed in to attend and all was done with a high degree of professionalism.

A note about the word "timpanogos." It is derived from a Paiute or Shoshone Indian word roughly translated meaning, "narrow or neck of rocks." This likely refers to the steep walled canyons in the wall of the Wasatch Mountains along the east side of the Utah Valley where Orem and Provo and other cities are located. While at the University of Utah in about 1967 through 1970, I helped write an English/Shoshone Shoshone/English dictionary using the main frame computer at the University. Timponogos is the name of a very prominent mountain visible from almost all parts of Utah Valley.

If you don't know what this has to do with genealogy, then you haven't been listening to your heart. Genealogy really is all about stories. I went through the "names and dates" phase of my genealogical development when I first started investigating my ancestry about 32 years ago. But even then, I took the time to preserve every scrap of paper that pertained to my ancestry. In my other blog, Rejoice, and be exceeding glad..., I have been writing about the loss of genealogical information when people hoard their research and refuse to share with others. I realized very early in my genealogical research efforts that the heart of the matter lay in the stories and sharing those stories is really what we do as genealogists.

I get really annoyed when someone makes disparaging remarks about genealogists as if genealogists were somehow the opposite of the storytellers. This is most evident in statements that say "you don't need to be a genealogist to..." Well, that may be true at one level or another. You certainly do not have to be a genealogist to enjoy stories about your family or help to preserve those stories. But it is the genealogists who discovered or preserved those stories in the first place. Preserving oral traditions is a lot more effort than simply uploading a few copied stories to a website.

When Dr. Wick R. Miller rode out into the deserts of Nevada to preserve the last remnants of the Shoshone language and stories, he had to spend a huge amount of time and effort to preserve what he could find in local communities. See Wick R. Miller Collection. Here is a description of the collection:
The collection includes two binders that Wick R. Miller compiled based on the interactions that he and his students had with the Shoshone and Gosiute communities in Nevada and California during the years 1965-1968. These binders contain a wealth of information in their 511 pages, including summaries of interviews with over 100 Shoshoni speakers, and profiles of about 40 speech communities, reservations, and colonies.
This is what was preserved:
The profiles of Shoshoni speakers include kinship information, places they had lived, and language background. Some of these interviews included memories of traditional practices that date to the early part of the 20th century or commentary on the state of the American Indian people in the late 1960s. There are in-depth descriptions of woven spoons, pine-nut harvesting, fandangos people traveled to as children, and how particular geographical features tie into traditional stories. 
Some of the community profiles are extensive and include maps and information on the internal political climate of the communities and insight into the ways the communities were dealing with pressure from outside policies and increasing contact with mainstream American culture. Others are very brief, illustrating the weakening of many peoples’ ties with the Shoshoni community as only a few (or no) Shoshoni speakers who lived there could be named. 
The information contained in these binders gives us a glimpse back to a place in time that cannot be recovered. Many of the people named are no longer living and much of this information is not available elsewhere.
Now exactly the same things could be said about the families of any number of diligent genealogists and historians. Talking about the impact of stories in one thing, collecting and preserving those stories is another thing. I started collecting stores, back when I was still a student working on the Shoshone project at the University of Utah. My very first effort was a tape recording of my grandmother who was a resident of a care center near the campus. Since then, I have collected stories, diaries, journals, oral histories and more. I must admit, I should have done more than I did. I lost a lot of opportunities to talk to older relatives and that loss is permanent.

I am currently, once again, involved in yet another oral history project, preserving the oral histories of some of the older people that live in my Ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Now, if we are going to be promoting stories, photos and documents as artifacts of our family history, I think it would be a good idea to promote the capturing and preservation of these same artifacts from the members of our families today for our descendants. I will write more about this later.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Timpanogos Storytelling Festival

Friday, 29 August and Saturday, 30 August, 2014, we are attending the Timpanogos Storytelling Festival. This too is family history at its storytelling best. Sorry for any delay in posting more articles to read. Take this time to read some of the more recent ones you skipped.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Comments from the Vendors -- The Future of Genealogy Conferences

I will not be mentioning any names. Nor will I be identifying any people, but during the past few months, I have had the opportunity to discuss the economics of genealogy conferences with several very active vendors. These are the people that set up booths or tables at conferences with the hope that they will sell enough of their product to make up the expenses of going to the conferences or even make a profit. The overall picture that they paint is dismal. Unless they are fortunate to be subsidized by a major corporation, collectively they are not optimistic about attending conferences in the future. If they are subsidized by one of the larger vendors, they are cutting back and only attending very large conferences.

There are two ways to look at conference attendance; as an advertising expense or as a sales opportunity. Some vendors are there only for the exposure. Others need to make sales to continue business. Who buys genealogically related products at a conference? That is the question to answer. Many genealogy companies are very small business and a significant number would fall into the category of "mom and pop" operations. If they are carefully watching the trends and have gone to a few conferences, they likely have moved as much of their business as possible to direct Internet sales. If I were in the genealogy business, I would be looking for some other way to make a living.

Why is all this happening? Lately, I have been talking about shifts in the way genealogy is conducted. We are definitely moving from a paper-based, individually maintained pursuit to an online, collaborative model. If you are a seasoned, experienced genealogist, you may be conducting your research pretty much the same way you did ten or even twenty years ago. But you are living an anachronism. It wouldn't occur to a younger potential genealogist to begin his or her search for ancestors other than online and use one of the online family tree programs. Unless, as a business, you are not addressing this exclusively online market, you will probably not be making many sales in the future.

But why and how does this affect the genealogy conferences? Well, I could make a list:

  • Webinars
  • Online teleconferences
  • Pod casts
  • Webcasts
  • YouTube Videos
  • Local free conferences
The list could go on and on. Let's say you would think about going to a conference to see one of your "favorite" genealogy experts in person. Now what if you had just watched him or her in a live webinar, where you got to ask questions. Are now anxious to fork over cold hard cash to travel to a conference? One concrete example is the major U.S. conference now coming up on its fifth year: RootsTech. Many of the presentations at RootsTech were recorded on videos and distributed to over 600+ locations throughout the world. We all ready know that will happen again this year a much larger scale. This is a huge benefit to the individual genealogist. It makes available talented presentations that would never have come to a local conference. All of these conferences have been and will be free to the public. If you know that you will have a "free" conference in your area in the near future, why would you plan to pay to travel to a larger conference? Especially, if the same people were teaching at your local conference by video?

Younger genealogists are used to watching YouTube and other online presentations. They are involved in Facetime, Google+ Hangouts and other direct video communication. Genealogy does not generate super-star movie actors. Genealogy does not create rock stars or teenage idols. You do not see young people wearing teeshirts blazoned with genealogy company logos. Genealogy does not have the interest of a Comicon, a rock concert or a Star Trek conference. 

There you go. The smaller free conferences do not need or support vendors. The genealogist benefit from the increased opportunities to learn and mingle with fellow genealogists. If they like, they can still go to one of the big conferences, but the smaller commercially operated conferences no longer support vendors. 

What is genealogy?

OK, I have come full circle again. I am back to questioning the stereotypical image of a genealogist and also back to the question about whether or not genealogy even has a definition. First some different questions. Does searching for your ancestors, per se, make you into a "genealogist?" Is there some threshold entry requirement for becoming a "genealogist." Do I become a genealogist the moment that I begin calling myself one?

There is an interesting analogy. We have real estate salespeople and we have REALTORS®. As the National Association of REALTORS® likes to frequently point out, "A real estate agent is a REALTOR® when he or she is a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. I think there are those who would like to make a distinction between those interested in family history and GENEALOGISTS. Maybe those who think this way should start coming up with a new trade name? I might also point out that the REALTORS® have an uphill battle. You may wish to read a rather entertaining history of the word in The Word Detective's post "Realtor."

Every time I write about this subject, I get comments from GENEALOGISTS who point out that they are eminently inclusive and that they have no intention of excluding any of huddled masses from their own pursuit of their own family history. But we all know that real GENEALOGISTS adhere to certain standards and are usually members of certain organizations. How do we maintain a consistent balance between professionalism and inclusivity?

By looking at the real estate community, you can make some interesting comparisons to genealogy. For example, by statute in Arizona, anyone can sell their own property. But it you want to sell property for someone else and make a commission, you must be registered with the State of Arizona. In addition to registration, you have to take a rather long and involved formal real estate course and pass a test. Oh, and you have to pay for and receive a license to "practice real estate." See Arizona Real Estate License - Qualifying for and Obtaining. But even then, you do not become a REALTOR®. As I already pointed out, calling yourself a REALTOR® requires joining a particular organization.

Should we aspire to the same sort of regulation for genealogy? I think the main reason this analogy does not work completely is the nature of the product. On one hand, we are talking about real estate. In the United States we can own real estate. We have a formal title system for ownership with government recording requirements that date back into antiquity. On the other hand, genealogy is a nebulous concept of recording information about our ancestors, none of whom we own. I also think that we would have a much harder time trademarking the word GENEALOGIST (with or without capital letters) than the National Association of Real Estate Boards had back in 1916 for REALTORS®.

But this analogy brings up some more basic issues. As I have pointed out in previous posts, the number of professionally certified or accredited genealogists is very, very small compared to the number of people who have enough interest in information about their ancestors to put a family tree online. There is no other fact that so completely separates the "serious genealogists" from those who have a casual interest than this one fact. Because I teach at the BYU Family History Library and previously taught at the Mesa FamilySearch Library, I have been in a position for years to hear from patrons. The one most common complaint I hear, as I have mentioned before, is that people are changing my family history on Family Tree. This is always said with the attitude that "I am putting in the correct information" and "they" are putting in incorrect information. Of course, what I usually find is that neither the complainant nor the person changing the online record have any sources to support their position.

By asking the above questions, I am not advocating creating a cadre of genealogy enforcers. You may be able to cite examples of the abuses of so-called professional genealogists that warrant regulation, but it is unlikely that there are so many occurrences that any state legislature would take you seriously. In any event, as I well know from the practice of law and real estate, just because you have a professional organization and entry requirements does not mean that you do not have issues with professionalism and honesty.

This post is more of a component in an ongoing dialogue than some kind of resolution. The dialogue is going on in my mind and I appreciate any comments or input.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The Limits of Accuracy

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. This is sometimes referred to as the Heisenberg principle, but it was formally derived by Earle Hesse Kennard and Hermann Wey. See Wikipedia: Uncertainty principle.

In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved two theorems of mathematical logic. Quoting from Wikipedia: Gödel's incompleteness theorems,
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
One of the most influential books I have ever read discusses the application of the Heisenberg principle and the incompleteness theorem of Kurt Gödel. The book is Hofstadter, Douglas R. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books, 1979.

These mathematical principles were "discovered" and changed mathematics in a fundamental way. So, you say, here we go again, how can this possibly have anything to do with genealogy? Well, humor me. Here is what I have to say on the subject of certainty. In essence both principles boil down to the statement that some measurements can never be precise and some systems cannot ever be proved completely without resorting to proofs outside of the system. These limitations were not known until quite recently. Now, I am not saying that genealogy is very much like mathematics, but there are several concepts that suggest similarities.

It has only been quite recently that a large mass of genealogical data has been created in centralized repositories and made reasonably available. Historically, genealogists had to focus their efforts entirely on a smattering of records scattered pretty uniformly all over the world. Those large centralized data accumulations, such as the libraries of the Genealogical Society of Utah (i.e. the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah), the New England Historic Genealogical Society and others were only accessible if you had the time and the resources to travel to the library itself. Now today, most of these scattered collections still exist, but technological changes have made untold millions of records accessible for free or for a moderate cost. For example, even with the advent of microfilmed records, obtaining access to the microfilm could be a slow and inefficient process. You could only guess from the microfilm's catalog description if it might contain information about your ancestors and it was very disappointing to order a film, wait until it appeared and then find that it had no useful information.

Most recently, advancing technology has resolved some of the microfilm issues by making the images available in digital format online. But the changes being wrought by technology are more basic than just increasing genealogical record availability. The vast accumulations of genealogical source records and online family tree entries are pointing out some ultimate limitations on accuracy and completeness. Ultimately, these physical limitations of the system will be the most significant barriers to genealogical research.

The effect of the accumulation of massive genealogical data concentrated online and available to huge numbers of people who, previously, would never of had such access is starting to reveal the fundamental limitations in the overall system. The most evident of these limitations is the level of accuracy of the overall system. Researchers are becoming painfully aware of the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the accumulation of records. You can rail against the inconsistency, but as we accumulate more and more sources and records, the fact that there are such inconsistencies becomes more and more apparent. For example, it my knowledge of my ancestors was limited to one source, perhaps a surname book or a pedigree chart from a relative, I had one version of my ancestral history. Today, we can have hundreds or even thousands of versions. It is not just the compiled family tree records that are at fault, the very documents we refer to as sources are inconsistent and vague. There are few days that go by that I do not hear the complaints about the inaccuracy of the system.

What is less apparent is that there is an ultimate limit to our accuracy. No matter how careful we are and no matter how experienced, we will encounter inconsistency. We will be forced to choose between different dates, places and even different people. It is not that the records are unreliable, it is just that we now have access to multiple versions of the same types of records and multiple records that were either previously unavailable or impossible to obtain. Even if we resort to the time honored "proof statement," in many more cases we will be forced to admit that the conflicting evidence cannot be reconciled. We have found our own genealogical uncertainty principle, the limit of our ability to prove our ancestry.

But there is an even deeper issue. That is that genealogy, as such, is incapable of even defining itself. This is similar, in some ways, to the limits imposed by the theorems postulated by Kurt Gödel. By analogy, genealogy can never be completely defined or complete. In saying this, I am expressing a physical certainty. There will always be more records, but the search for absolute proof will never be complete. We cannot even come up with an adequate definition of "genealogy," much less come to a universal agreement as to what constitutes an adequate proof.

We can wring our collective hands over these limitations but they are physically imposed by the system we have collectively created. Genealogy will always be uncertain and incomplete.