Pages

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Evaluating Genealogical Research

I have a rule when I am reading a non-fiction book. If I come to a statement or conclusion that I know to be inaccurate or incorrect, I immediately begin questioning the reliability of the entire book. I was recently reading about about the technological changes in libraries around the world and the author, who was supposed to be a noted authority on the subject, made a statement that showed he did not understand some of most basic features of the new technology. That kind of problem ruins the book for me. If it looks like the problem is just poor editing, then I keep reading, but if I see the same problems occurring I stop reading the book. Essentially, if I can spot errors from what I know, how will I spot errors in the parts I am not so familiar with?

After 39 years of trial practice as a lawyer, I also assume that people treat me the same way I treat non-fiction books.

Now we find ourselves surrounded by a huge international genealogical community. Substantial parts of that community consist of people with only the most casual and superficial interest in genealogical research. They are easily satisfied with a few facts about their "relatives" or ancestors and have no intention of pursuing any research. This group would be surprised that anyone would consider them to be genealogists. At the other end of the spectrum, we have professionals who spend the most of their time in intensive, detailed research into original source documents and fuss about the details of formatting entries. How do we reconcile this disparity? Out of this huge mishmash of data do we determine what is and what is not reliable?

Unfortunately my rule regarding non-fiction books is of little help to me in evaluating genealogical research. Of course I can detect blatant errors such as mothers whose children were born after she is reported to have died, but how do you detect less obvious, unreliable genealogical conclusions? More importantly, that same entry with the obvious data error may otherwise be perfectly reliable. Presently my only conclusion is to redo the research and come to my own conclusions. To take this position I have to begin with the assumption that every undocumented assertion is questionable. Then if the documented assertions are reasonable and consistent, I can then decide whether or not I will adopt them and rely on them after I have reviewed the documentation.

The basic flaw in such schemes as the "Genealogical Proof Standard" is that if the researcher gives, what appears to be, complete, accurate source citation for each conclusion and writes a report that seems to comply with the standard, then you are still in the situation of relying on the researcher's integrity.  Despite the adherence to formalities and despite reputation, from my standpoint, I would have to personally verify the conclusions. All of the citations and "arguments will merely make my job harder or easier depending on the availability of the sources cited. However it is the nature of historical research that two or more researchers can look at the same source documentation and come to completely opposite conclusions. Even if the entire genealogical community is in agreement on a particular issue, subsequent research may disclose differences. See the Thomas Jefferson controversy for example in the following book.

Gordon-Reed, Annette. The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2008.

The important issue here is that the source citations and documentation exist so the conclusions can be checked. When I become disenchanted with a book, it is usually because there is a lack of documentation for the conclusions expressed. In the case of the example above, there was no evidence that the writer had based his statements on any cited authority. If the author or researcher is expressing an opinion, derived from experience or contemplation, that is fine. But if you tell me that your opinion on a historical or genealogical question is a "fact" and that the fact is proved by some source, you had better tell me your source.

If I enter information into a pedigree or family group record for my own reference and continued research, then what I have is my own business. But if I take that same information and add it to an open online family tree, then the information become everyone's business. Individual records from the distant past to the present, are essentially claiming to be correct. Even leaving aside the issue of intentional fabrication or lying, original records are assumed to be correct unless contradicted by other records. For example if I find a birth certificate for my grandfather, I am justified in assuming the date recorded is correct unless I find another document that contradicts that same information. If I further assume that I have found five different records that have a birth date for my grandfather and none of the five agree with any of the others, then I must either approximate the date or choose the one I think is correct. In either case I need to show all five records with the five different dates in the explanation for my conclusion. The case where a given date or event has contradicting source records is fairly common. As long as subsequent researchers are provided with the contradicting information, there is no problem. The actual date is still unknown or unsupported.

Even if an immensely knowledgeable researcher were to follow all of the recommended guidelines for "proving his or her conclusions," the bottom line is that the conclusions are nothing more than a vaulted opinion. One example of what I saying comes from a situation I wrote about previously. My Parkinson family line initially had a long list of sources for more recent ancestors. However, despite the long list and the apparent detail of the entries in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, there were no sources cited for any births, deaths or marriages. The citations demonstrated more than adequately that the family lived in Utah but there was not one citation showing their origins in England.

The challenge we face, when you analyze all the factors involved, is that we can only make progress in finding our ancestors with any chance of reliability by carefully drawing our conclusions from the existing historical records. Once the information has moved into our "comfort zone" we can then extend our lines even further. But like the situation when I am navigating around an unfamiliar neighborhood, there is always the chance, despite using GPS and maps, that I will take a wrong turn. Likewise there are many wrong turns in genealogy.




6 comments:

  1. “If the author or researcher is expressing an opinion, derived from experience or contemplation, that is fine. But if you tell me that your opinion on a historical or genealogical question is a "fact" and that the fact is proved by some source, you had better tell me your source.”

    This is where you lose me, surely all trees are opinion, even those backed up by DNA are simply opinion not fact.
    If you think they are fact then I am afraid you are being misled.

    “For example, if I find a birth certificate for my grandfather, I am justified in assuming the date recorded is correct unless I find another document that contradicts that same information.”

    Perhaps that is so in the USA but here in good old Blighty things are different.
    Nothing repeat nothing can be assumed to be accurate everything requires other documentation to back it up.

    Think about it how were parish records complied, the vicar would make a note in his rough book during the week and would then copy it in to the register once a week on Sunday, very often the registers themselves would be copied into other registers.
    Even civil registers the most common source of civil registers is the GRO. The GRO does not contain original registers it contains transcripts.
    These transcripts used to then copied again to produce the certificate though now they are scans of the transcripts.
    If instead of using the GRO we decide to use a local register office to obtain a copy we get more often than not a transcribed copy.
    I have a scan of a copy of my mother’s marriage certificate that shows her surname as Imy instead of Guy even though her mother and father’s surnames are clearly Guy.
    You would have though anyone copying such a record would think that strange and check it had been transcribed correctly.

    Never assume anything always find other documentation to back it up not just on more source or even two more sources but as many as you can find.
    Never, repeat never ignore any source that contains information about an individual you are interested in as that one source may be the only accurate morsel of information you will find.

    Cheers
    Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I was in-artfully trying to say the same thing that you just wrote in a more concise and better way. Thanks.

      Delete
  2. James, I enjoyed this post, being one of the professionals who spend their time with original source documents and take pains with source citations. Most professional work I see is very careful to focus on evidence, not proof. "Proof" is a word knowledgeable genealogists avoid, as it is so easily misunderstood and carelessly used.

    I don't know that the chasm between the casual tree-builder hobbyist and the scholarly researcher can be bridged, or whether it needs to be. There seems to be room aplenty for everyone, and I appreciate the casual hobbyists who keep my Ancestry.com subscription affordable. Best, Jean Andrews, CG(sm)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for you kind comments. They are appreciated.

      Delete
  3. >"However, despite the long list and the apparent detail of the entries in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, there were no sources cited for any births, deaths or marriages. The citations demonstrated more than adequately that the family lived in Utah but there was not one citation showing their origins in England."

    This happens a lot - a family may have hundreds of sources but not one that applies to a specific fact. The visual layout of many systems (especially FamilySearch Family Tree) makes it impossible to see what facts are connect to what sources and see where additional sources are needed. It's actually been a tough thing to teach people that they have to look at the sources listed, because it may be nothing more than a child's marriage record that says the parents lived in a particular place, not actual documentation that they lived in a particular place. Telling the difference between the sources and where they go takes me an extraordinary amount of time it seems like!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it does. There is is an appearance of support without there actually being any.

      Delete