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

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Genealogy’s Cultural Imperialism

For the most part, as genealogists, we are a complacent and pretty self-absorbed community. For that reason, there are a few undercurrents of important issues that go mostly ignored. Among the issues lurking in the outer limits of genealogy is the fact that the structure of our genealogical databases, inherited from the old paper forms, does not fit many of the world’s kinship systems, even some of those that come from Western Europe where the paper forms originated.

On one of my recent trips, I was listening to and audio book of the book, Mandela, Nelson. Long Walk to Freedom. 1994. In the first few chapters of the book, he outlines his family’s genealogy and makes reference to his kinship system. I realized immediately that what he was describing would be nearly impossible to duplicate in any of the existing genealogy database programs. To put this problem in the perspective of the Black African’s terminology, this was just another example of European-centric imperialism imposing their cultural mores on the “natives.”

I have written about this issue previously but it has been some time and it is time to write again. Here is the Google definition of a kinship systems. See Google Search on Kinship Systems Definition.
Kinship systems are how people organize themselves into social relationships. These social relation- ships are often the building block of society, and involve relationships reckoned through blood – consanguinity, and through marriage – affinity. Through these relationships social roles and responsibilities are mapped.
For example, on the startup page of the FamilySearch.org website, there may appear an invitation to use Puzzilla.org to "find your cousins." Who is and who is not your cousin? As genealogists, we consider a descendent of one of our grandparents (great-grandparents etc.) to be a "cousin." Does this definition apply to all the world's kinship systems? What if your grandfather had more than one wife? Are his grandchildren through a second or third wife, not your direct grandmother, your cousins? If your father had more than one wife, what is your relationship to the other wives who are not your mother? What if your society recognized plural marriage as was the case with Nelson Mandela's family? 

Now the question is how do you represent these relationships on our "standard pedigree chart and family group charts?" Since I last wrote about this subject there are some attempts among the genealogical database programs to adjust to these issues, but still from a very European perspective. For example, the relatively new program from Heredis.com, has, what they call, the Extended Family View:
This new and more comprehensive view of your family shows its composition as a whole: siblings, remarriage, stepchildren, step- brothers and step-sisters, children from other unions of the different spouses… noting or not when they belong to the direct lineage. All the people with whom they lived, all those who they knew are in the extended family. A practical tool for analyzing re-marriages in the family.
Here is a screenshot of part of my Great-grandfather's family. Note, he had two wives and his father had five wives.


Another example would be the Haida, group of people who lived primarily in the Queen Charlotte Islands off the northern coast of British Columbia. Here is a brief description of their kinship system:
In the sense of "maternal grandfather," the term is extended to all men of the second ascending generation and upward in the opposite moiety, and in M also sometimes to men of the first ascending generations except those of the father's clan, who are call ye' (paternal uncle). In the sense of "paternal grandfather," however, it refers specifically to the father's father, who must, of course, belong to the speaker's moiety though not necessarily to the same clan. 
See, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1934) "Kinship and Social Behavior among the Haida," George Peter Murdock pp. 355-385 (31 pages) p. 357.
There is, of course, an argument that we can ignore all of this and simply view human family trees from a strictly biological basis. Are we then to ignore the true culturally determined relationships? Let's just throw all that out and impose our own world view on the rest of humanity.

But, you say, I don't have to deal with that so why should I care? Well, I would submit that those of us who are living in the United States today have just as complex a kinship system to confront. You can read the National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 62, number 9 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Births: Final Data for 2012. This compilation of statistics says:
The birth rate for unmarried women fell for the fourth consecutive year in 2012 to 45.3 per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years. The percentage of births to unmarried women was unchanged from 2011 at 40.7%, but the number of nonmarital births increased slightly, by less than 1%, to 1,609,619.
This says that 40.7% of the children born today in the United States are born out of wedlock. What is the kinship system of these children? How will we be accounting for their families in the future as genealogists?

We have some real issues here.




Friday, March 21, 2014

First Handwritten Transcribed Database Live and Searchable from Mocavo.com

In an announcement today, 21 March 2014, Mocavo.com states the following:


First Transcribed Database Live and Searchable
We continue to make strides with our handwriting technology and we're putting the finishing touches on our transcription tool. Comprising more than 11,000 handwritten words, the first transcribed database is live and searchable!

With this new technology, our search engine reveals results that include both typewritten and handwritten text. Now we have the potential to bring even more offline content online for everyone to enjoy for free, forever.
 OK, the idea here is that the transcription tool allows users to transcribe handwritten portions of the text directly. See the following screenshot:


There are now almost 300,000 databases on Mocavo.com and they are still adding new one at the rate of 1000 every single day. They are also announce a new Summary Search View described as follows:

With millions of potential matches added to our search engine every day, we want to give you multiple ways to quickly scan through your results and break through your brick walls. Previously, a search results page would show you an excerpt of the content and, if available, an image preview with the matching word highlighted in yellow. Today, I'm excited to announce Summary Search View; a new feature that we're releasing in beta (and available exclusively to our Mocavo Gold members) that offers an entirely new way to view your search results. Summary Search View allows you to group your results by category and database title, making it a breeze to target the databases that spark your interest, and quickly avoid those that are irrelevant to your research.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

RootsTech Videos are now available online

The entire set of videos from #RootsTech 2014 is now available online. These videos consist of the all of the presentations videoed in the largest conference. Here is a link to the announcement from Steve Anderson at FamilySearch with links to each of the presentations


For those who were not able to personally attend RootsTech 2014, we now have the video recorded presents of nineteen selected speakers posted online for you to listen to in the comfort of your own home.
Below are links to each of their presentations. These presentations can be found on the RootsTech 2014 website.
Innovator Summit Keynote Speaker (Business and Developer track) Thursday Speakers
  • Ree Drummond, the Pioneer Woman, and Annelies van den Belt, CEO of DC Thomson Family History, as keynote speakers. & Josh Taylor: Opening Keynote Speakers (90)
Friday Speakers Saturday Speakers
There were other classes videoed but they are being sent out to over 622 locations through out the world. It is not yet clear whether these later records are going to be posted online. 

Oh, my another spiffy app -- Quip for Genealogists

We found an very interesting app for Windows, OS X, iOS, Android and so forth. It is entire web-based and so it works on all devices with access to the Internet. The app is called Quip.com. It is sort-of a mixture of Dropbox and Evernote with some other programs thrown in. Essentially, It is a simple word processing program with instant sharing capabilities. You sign in using your Google account and get to work. You can invite others to see and collaborate on the same document at the same time. You might want to give it a try.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Comments on Becoming an Excellent Genealogist -- Chapter Four

This is an ongoing series of chapter by chapter comments on the book,

Meyerink, Kory L., Tristan Tolman, and Linda K. Gulbrandsen. Becoming an Excellent Genealogist: Essays on Professional Research Skills. [Salt Lake City, Utah]: ICAPGen, 2012.

I am now commenting on Chapter Four: Avoiding the Assumption Trap by Apryl Cox, AG.

This short chapter covers a very broad area of concern among genealogists, that is, making unwarranted assumptions based on unsupported traditions, rumors, lack of sources and any other limitations on credibility of the data. It sounds like the author of this chapter thinks like an attorney or a Cartesian philosopher. From Wikipedia: Cartesian doubt:
Cartesian doubt is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy. This method of doubt was largely popularized in Western philosophy by René Descartes (1596-1650), who sought to doubt the truth of all his beliefs in order to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true.

Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of pure knowledge.
 It is apparent that methodological skepticism is a healthy attitude for practicing genealogists. There is a difference between citing a source and accepting a source as evidence of the facts contained therein. From time to time I am confronted by a researcher who is distraught for the reason that he or she has encountered conflicting sources. However, conflicting sources, like conflicting testimony in a court case is inevitable. But unlike a court case, there is no third-party judge examining our genealogical research and giving us an opinion of its truth or falsity. Unfortunately, even in law where judges are very real and required to pass judgment, they may be wrong.

As we gain a measure of sophistication in our genealogical research we begin to appreciate how common it is to find unwarranted conclusions, not only in user contributed family trees, but also in scholarly journal articles. It is not unusual to find overwhelming documentary evidence rejected out of hand by those possessing the flimsiest of unsubstantiated opinion.

One insidious assumption pointed out by Apryl in her chapter is that our ancestors conformed to societal norms. Anyone who has traced their family lines back to a convicted criminal must realize that not all of our ancestors are going to be found in comfortable normalcy. They can very well be people of unusual habits and beliefs.

As usual, this chapter gives much in the way of food for thought. I am finding that this entire book so far should be read and studied by any serious genealogist.




Tuesday, March 18, 2014

What are the benefits of a unified family tree?

I got the following comment about a recent post concerning user owned vs. a unified family tree. See what you think.
I believe the best result a unified tree can hope for is a collection of smaller and bigger clusters of people. Lack of evidence or proof (of parentage, for instance) will ultimately prevent all these clusters to be interconnected. I am still confused about what the real benefits would be of a unified tree, however, and most of the reasons you give in favor of this kind of collaboration are circumstantial, rather than deliberate.
My first impression is that I need to clarify the idea of a unified family tree. Every person born on the earth has a unique biological set of parents and a unique birth order. I am not going to get into the ideas of test-tube babies and all that, even in those instances there are still unique biological parents even if those parents cannot be adequately identified.



A unified tree models this reality. Each node (individual) on the unified tree only has a place for one unique individual. Now, the question of "clusters." It is possible that isolated areas of the unified tree could exist, especially between two cultures. It may also be true that the connections between these isolated cultures are so far in the past that they lack a historically verifiable connection. But that is not fatal to the concept, that is only a practical issue. You cannot abandon the concept merely because of the present difficulty of establishing connection. Let's assume a tree made up of a local ethnic group that has little contact with any other group. The fact that this sub-tree exists is not a condemnation of the concept it is in fact a confirmation of the the need for such a conceptual model. The main strength of the model is that within the "clusters" the mechanism of the tree forces the participants to agree upon the identity of the individuals in each node.

Let me illustrate a hypothetical situation. Let's suppose that I am working on identifying my ancestry for the first time and beginning with my own parents. Let's further suppose that there is a robust unified tree reflecting my particular ethnic background. What are the chances of my investigations back along my ancestry leading me to a connection with the exiting unified family tree? If the unified tree has reached a point of "critical mass" then the possibility of connecting with the tree is close to 100%. Why is that the case? Because of a basic genealogical fact called "pedigree collapse." Here is the explanation from Wikipedia:
Without pedigree collapse, a person's ancestor tree is a binary tree, formed by the person, the parents (2), the grandparents (4), great-grandparents (8), and so on. However, the number of individuals in such a tree grows exponentially and will eventually become impossibly high. For example, a single individual alive today would, over 30 generations going back to the High Middle Ages, have or roughly a billion ancestors, more than the total world population at the time. 
This apparent paradox is explained by shared ancestors. Instead of consisting of all unique individuals, a tree may have multiple places occupied by a single individual. This typically happens when the parents of an ancestor are cousins (sometimes unbeknownst to themselves). For example, the offspring of two first cousins has at most only six great-grandparents instead of the normal eight. This reduction in the number of ancestors is pedigree collapse. It collapses the ancestor tree into a directed acyclic graph.
A unified tree provides the potential for interconnections even if the practical reality cannot prove that those connections exist. Otherwise, you would have to believe that ultimately there were separate human species that had never intermingled.

What do I mean by "critical mass?" When the tree reaches a point that it has included a significant percentage of any given ethnically related community, it will contain all of the people needed to establish links with almost all families. Because of the number of people in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, I assume that this critical mass was reached some time ago for ethnic groups coming from Western Europe. Unfortunately, there are still areas of the Family Tree program that do not function and so this fact is obscured by the program's disfunction.

OK, now to the advantages. Here is my list of advantages:

  1. The unified tree forces collaboration. If you and I share a common ancestor and we both are trying to fill that node on the tree, we must come to a common consent as to the information about that ancestor. However, most users of a unified tree see this as detrimental rather than beneficial. They are so wrapped up in the supposed accuracy of their own research that they cannot countenance the existence of contrary opinions. They also do not want to take the time to educate their supposedly "unreasonable" relatives. 
  2. The unified tree ultimately avoids duplication. There is an assumption made that somehow the same sloppy, undocumented garbage that exists in user-owned family trees will spread to a unified tree. This is the case initially, but as the tree matures, there will be less and less space for this type of problem to occur. If you judge the utility of a unified tree by the accuracy of the initial data set, you are lacking an understanding of the mechanism of how the tree evolves. The initial data set is arbitrary. It could be gibberish. What matters is the involvement of those who have the "correct" information. As time passes and more and more changes are made to the tree, the information becomes more and more accurate. When I am talking about duplication, I do not mean merely duplication of individuals, which is not possible, but duplication of research and effort. Once my grandfather is in the tree and documentation, photos, stories etc. are included, there is no need for each generation to repeat that process as is happening today. 
  3. The unified tree provides a reference point for serious research. Anyone who is interested in any given family line merely has to go to the tree to see what has already been done and what needs to be done. Presently, in the FamiySearch.org Family Tree there relatively very few documented entries. As that changes over time, it will be possible to determine the state of research of almost any family line included in the tree.
If you do not see these points as benefits then you still do not understand how a unified tree will work. The major issue is frustration with people adding or changing information with no accountability. The weakest link in the present FamilySearch.org Family Tree is the ability of users to make changes without having current contact information in the program. The second weakest link is the ability to make changes without providing a source. If these two issues were resolved, a measurable amount of the frustration with the tree would disappear. 

Monday, March 17, 2014

Where do we park our personal research?

For some members of the greater genealogical community the computer age has yet to arrive. But regardless of your attitude towards computerization or storing your research online or any of a multitude of other questions, ultimately we all have to face our mortality and become concerned about what will happen to our pile of research whether big or small. I continue to hear horror stories about the loss of a genealogist's entire life's work, usually thrown in the garbage. I recently received the rather extensive comment in response to a post entitled, "Family Trees: Unified vs. User Owned."
1. The fear of losing ownership or control of the data" 
I'm sorry but this bundles up several very different reasons, viz: 
1a The belief that "these are my ancestors". 
1b A lack of faith in the ability of the so-called collaborators to follow sensible research process. Examples are where people alter values without leaving any justification or without responding to the existing arguments on the site that document why the proposed, new values are nonsense or who do not respond to requests to discuss or collaborate. 
1c A lack of faith in the ability of the software to implement the collaboration process. Example - not providing a mandatory contact process. How can one collaborate with some who cannot be contacted? 
1d Inability of the software to convey any nuance of likelihood. For instance, there may be a probability that X is the child of A and B but also a probability that X is the child of C and D and a probability that X is the child of someone else entirely. I know of no software that allows for all three possibilities and collaboration naturally ends up with multiple possibilities.

Items 1b and 1c are crucial and are dismissed far too often as being the same as 1a.
I'd also add: 
7. A lack of awareness that the sensible thing to do is to keep a user-owned family tree at the same time as collaborating on a separate unified family tree. Does any supplier of a unified family tree advise that having two trees is sensible? Or are they all content to let people think that the unified family tree is the only tree you'll ever need? 
Also we have:
Inability of the target software to accommodate all the data that the user already has. This applies to any online tree not just unified family trees. Example - FamilySearch FamilyTree is incapable of loading all sorts of data - notes against events, multiple baptisms, etc.
This comment raises some fundamental issues about the utility of online programs to support serious genealogical research. So even if researchers elected to store their data online, how would the conflicts pointed out in the comment be resolved? Aren't we all, in a sense, losing our data the minute we commit to one format, especially if that format is online in a public user supported family tree?

I have repeatedly heard the comment that a researcher did not want to commit their data to an online family tree because doing so would allow others to copy the data without qualification and the researcher knew that his or her conclusions were tentative at best.

I have found this to be the case when I uploaded my very early research many years ago. Little did I know that my tentative conclusions would be spread over the entire Internet and copied thousands of times including all my errors and wrong conclusions. But then doesn't this raise a real issue? When is our research done to the point that we can comfortably send it out to the world? And if we die before we are ready? What then?

As the commentator points out, there is really no place that undecided, tentative research can be adequately discussed online and the unified family trees, although the step in the right direction, do not answer all of the questions.