download PDF (Dutch – version 2) – 1.10 MB

The Genealogisch Onderzoeksproces (Genealogy Research Process) is important to researchers in the Dutch genealogy community and the Standaard voor Genealogisch Bewijs (Genealogical Proof Standard) is being promoted outside the United States.  Maybe the Board for Certification of Genealogists should consider working with genealogists in other countries to translate The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual into other languages.

One evangelist of good genealogy research practices in the Netherlands is Rob van Drie, the head of research services & deputy directory at the Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie in The Hague, the Netherlands, a state supported documentation center for genealogy.  Rob describes the purpose of the Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie and some sources of inspiration for their efforts:

As Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie we are from 1945 onward the central depot for results of genealogical research. Before the digital era those results were given to us either in print or in handwriting. To be able to continue our position in this field we are working on a webservice StamboomNederland. It is our ambition to give to the Dutch public a digital depot where they can store the results of their research for the future. We do this on a non commercial basis. Genealogists must be able to upload results (in Gedcom or XML) or to add information ´manually´ by typing it in the screens of the webservice. Your `10 Things´ has next to the GenTech Genealogical Data Model and the publications on source citation by Elizabeth Shown Mills, has been very inspiring to us.

Rob has already included the Genealogy Research map in a presentation now hosted on SlideShare and with this updated map hopes to get the word out to a wider audience in various educational publications.  It it my understanding that Rob has taught good research practices in educational lecturing and writing since 1998.  Of the Genealogy Research map, he has stated:

Your more detailed map is a nice tool to make the researcher aware of where he stands in the research process and what he has to do to come to a sound conclusion.

I want to make sure that proper credit goes to the BCG and Elizabeth Shown Mills for all their work (and continuing efforts) to advance genealogy research excellence.  All I did was try to incorporate their teachings into a visualization that I could use as a reference.

Best wishes to Bob, Rob, and many others in the Netherlands as they teach sound genealogy research practices.

This Saturday, November 14, 2009 from 9:00 am to noon, the Arizona State Genealogical Society will hold an Advanced Methodology workshop.

First the group will analyze a case study and determine if the research objective was proved.

I then have the privilege of presenting “Navigating Research with the Genealogical Proof Standard.”  The presentation slides, handout, and a copy of the Genealogy Research Process Map can be found at: http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/map

I am really excited to meet the members of the society and share a topic that is very important to me.

If you are in Tucson, AZ this Saturday morning, you are invited to attend the workshop.  More information can be found at the Arizona State Genealogical Society site:

http://azsgs.org/event/advanced-methodology/

This slide presentation goes with the syllabus material that I posted earlier.

Hope to see some of you on Friday at 1:30pm.

Source, Information, & Evidence

According to Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills, ”sources are artifacts, books, digital files, documents, film, people, photographs, recordings, websites, etc.” (see page 24)  Information is the content of the source.  Evidence “represents our interpretation of information we consider relevant to the research question or problem.” (see page 25)  So in order to classify evidence we need both information and a research objective.  Even though the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) does not include a step to define research goals, I’ve included it as part of the Genealogy Research Process Map because it is implied.  Step one of the GPS states:

“We conduct a reasonable exhaustive search in reliable sources for all information that is or may be pertinent to the identity, relationship, event, or situation in question.”
The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual, page 1.

How do we know which sources to search if we don’t have a research objective?  The definitions of direct and indirect evidence also points to the need to have a defined research objective:

Direct evidence – relevant information that seems to answer the research question or solve the problem all by itself.
Indirect evidence – relevant information that cannot, alone, answer the question;
Negative evidence – an inference we can draw from the absence of information that should exist under particular circumstances.
Evidence Explained, page 25

Even the definition for negative evidence hints at a research objective.

So how can we set the citation quality value for evidence in RootsMagic or any other genealogy software unless we have a research objective?

A research objective can be in the form of a question, statement, or hypothesis.  The following are all valid research objectives:

• What was Worth Tucker’s birth date and place?
• Where was Worth Tucker born?
• Worth Tucker was born 30 Nov 1870 in Ashe County, North Carolina.
• Was Worth Tucker born in 1869 or 1870?

How specific the research goal depends on the researcher and what they want to discover.

In RootsMagic, a source can be associated with a person, family, or fact:

And for each citation of a source you can specify a value for citation quality for source, information, and evidence.  But to classify evidence, what is the research objective implied or otherwise?

Let’s say we have a book that we use as a source.  It was created by its author and is an original source.  The source information is entered in the Master Source section and appears in the Master Source List.  A specific page of that book is specified in the Source Details section and some information from that page is entered as part of the Source Detail Text.  This information then needs to be evaluated based on who provided that information: the informant.  If the informant was a participant or eyewitness, then we can say that the information is primary, otherwise it is secondary.  Now we come to evidence.  We take that piece of information and compare it to our research objective, but since we don’t have one we must infer it from what the citation is related to: person, family, or fact.  It is important to note that it is usually the researcher that should determine the research objective and not the software. 

Since we don’t have research objectives, only what the citation is associated with, then we must imply the research objective.  This can be tricky. 

Evidence for Fact Citation

Since a birth fact allows you to enter date, place, and place details does information in the source we are citing need to contain all of this information before we can say that it is direct?  Put another way, is the implied research objective:

What is the date, city, county, state, and specific place of Worth Tucker’s birth?

or it is

What is the date and place of Worth Tucker’s birth?

Do they both mean the same thing?  There is room for ambiguity.  Not to mention the fact that as a researcher, maybe I wanted the research objective to be a statement or a hypothesis:

Worth Tucker was born 30 Nov 1870 in Ashe County, North Carolina.

Depending on the fact, the software ask us to enter different information:

• Birth – date, place, place details
• Alternate Name – given names, surname, prefix, suffix, name type, nickname, date
• Education – date, place, place details, description
• DNA – DNA results
• LDS Baptism – date, temple, status, live/temple

One workaround for fact-based citations is to define a guideline that the citation quality can be marked as direct only if all possible entry fields for that fact type are filled in completely.  If a date or place is only partially filled in or the information doesn’t allow all fields to be filled in, then it is indirect.

Evidence for Person Citation

What would be the implied research objective for a citation associated with a person?

When you add a new person it asks for given name(s), surname, prefix, suffix, sex, and nickname plus some vital facts.  So I guess the workaround for this situation is to have the research objective be:

What is the complete name, sex, and optional nickname of Worth Tucker?

If the information from the source can answer all the parts, then it is direct; otherwise it is indirect.

Evidence for Family Citation

Now what about the implied research objective for a citation associated with a family?

What are the complete names of both parents and all children as well as the birth order of the children for the marriage of Worth Tucker and Florence Abby Pulsipher?

If the information in the source can answer all parts of the question, then the evidence is direct.

An Eye to the Future

Part of the reason for the current implementation in RootsMagic 4 and similar software could be the decades-old focus on research results and not research analysis.  My first genealogy software was a DOS version of PAF.  Before using that software, all research and any conclusions I came up with were done on paper.  Even the first versions of PAF only allowed you to enter a single date for birth, christening, death, and burial.  So the software was intended only to record the results of your research.  Modern genealogy software allows you to enter multiple facts/events of the same type and associate a source citation to it.  That way, you could have half a dozen birth entries containing different values or different levels of detail as the your research required. The software is able to keep track of ongoing research, and not just results.  I think genealogy software will continue to innovate and allow more and more research collection and analysis to occur in the software.  That is the direction that citation quality is pointing in RootsMagic 4 and the similar feature in Family Tree Maker 2009.  The next logical step is to allow the software to define research projects each with their own research objectives.  These research objectives would then be associated with source citations and citation quality therefore clarifying the use of the classification of evidence as direct or indirect.

I strongly encourage users of RootsMagic to use this feature, but in its current implementation there are a few gotchas and workarounds that need to be followed.

The Genealogical Proof Standard & Evidence Explained define research analysis classifications for a source, information, and evidence. A source is an object (or person) that contains (or has) information. A source can be classified as original or derivative. An original source is in its first oral or recorded form. Everything else that comes from an original (or another derivative) is a derivative. For example, a book is an original. Let’s say that it is a census enumerator’s book that he carried from house to house to take the census. Now let’s say that book is microfilmed and stored at an archive. The microfilm copy is a derivative. The digitization of the microfilm is a second generation derivative of the original. Without getting into the special cases of image copies, duplicate originals, and record copies, it is relatively easy to start uncovering the provenance or ancestry of the source you are using for your research back to the original source. The classification of a source as original or derivative helps to answer the question “Is there a better source?” and helps in your analysis as original sources usually carry more weight than derivative.

In RootsMagic 4 on the Edit Source screen, you see both the Master Source and Source Details sections.  The information in the Master Source section is independent of the details recorded when a specific source is cited for a person, family, or fact. 

When you click on the Quality button you see the three categories for sources, information, and evidence with their possible values:

Mapping this screen to the previous, the Source category refers to the Master Source section and the Information category refers to the Source Details section.  I’ll discuss the Evidence category in another gotcha.  What this is saying is that a source is original or derivative independent of the information that it contains.  The book, A History of Emery County, is an original source written by Edward A. Geary and it remains an original regardless of the degree of knowledge (firsthand or secondhand) of the informant that provided the information contained on page 179 or any other page. I can understand putting all three categories on the same screen to simplify things for the genealogists using the software.

In the current implementation in RootsMagic 4 (version 4.0.3.0) the problem is that all three categories are associated with the Source Details section.  This is a problem because this source appears in the Master Source List and can be used to cite multiple sources:

What that means is that if you set the Source as Original for the first citation, it will not be reflected in subsequent citations.  Creating a second citation from that same Master Source List entry will default the Source to “Don’t know” and it must be set independently.  Let’s suppose you have 10 citations (different Source Details) for a single Master Source List entry.  You could have 5 set to Original, 3 to Derivative and 2 to Don’t know.  And if you change the value for one citation it is not reflected in the others.  Worst case, this is confusing plus requires extra work to make sure all of the sources are consistent.

The current work around is to add a Master Source Comment indicating that this source is original or derivative and then each time you cite this existing source, check the comment before setting the quality classification for Source.

It is my hope that in a future release, there will be a way to set the source as original or derivative from the Edit Source screen off the Master Source List:

Then when that source is cited again the Quality screen would default the Source to that same value.  The Source in the Quality screen could be read-only or if editable any changes would be reflected in all citations derived from that same master source.

I hope this constructive criticism is taken how it is intended: to make an important feature the best that it can be.

My presentation is one I have done before: “Navigating Research with the Genealogical Proof Standard.” We are allotted 4 pages for the syllabus material and so far I have used 3. Here is a preview of the syllabus material. Please provide constructive feedback.

P.S.  I will be presenting on Friday, July 31 from 1:30-2:30 p.m.  My presentation is part of the Methodology track.  I love to meet my blog readers, so attend the presentation or stop by afterwards and introduce yourself.

At last month’s Family History Expo in St. George, I was interviewed by Lisa Louise Cooke from Genealogy Gems.  We talked about the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) and my presentation, Navigating Research with the GPS.

I had a great time chatting with Lisa and the interview is now available as a podcast that you can listen to as well.

Hope you enjoy it.

For Those Who Attended My Class

1. Was there too much material to cover in the alotted time? 
2. What content should I consider cutting?
3. What specific content that should definately be kept in?
4. How do you feel differently about the presentation a few months later than you did right after it was presented?
5. How have you found the presentation practical and useful?
6. What concepts could have been explained better?
7. If there were a follow-on presentation, what would it be about?
8. What ways do you think I can make the presentation better?
9. What can I do better as a presenter?

For Those Who Have Viewed The Slides Online

1. Can the slides stand on thier own?
2. What concepts are unclear by just reading the slides?
3. What concepts did you expect to see in the presentation that were missing?
4. How effective are the visuals at improving understanding?
5. How effective is the case study?
6. How have you found the presentation practical and useful?
7. What ways do you think I can make the presentation better?

Thank you very much for your kindness in helping me improve this presentation.  When updated, I will be post the new slides online.

Please provide your feedback as a comment to this post or you can e-mail me directly at: 

mail at thinkgenealogy dot com

Thanks,

Mark

Last November I presented a class titled: Navigating Research with the Genealogical Proof Standard.  The slides for this presentation are now available on SlideShare.  You can catch this presentation if you will be attending the 5th Annual St. George Family History Expo 2009 held February 27-28.

In my presentation, Navigating Research with the Genealogical Proof Standard, I discuss 3 important documents that genealogists and family historians should use:

1. Research Plan
2. Research Log
3. Research Analysis

Those attending the class asked for copies of the documents.  Here is a link to the research documents in Microsoft Word format: 3 Research Documents

Three files can be used as templates for your own research.  The other three are filled in with my current research on my great grandfather, Worth Tucker, trying to determine his birth date and place.

I hope you find these documents useful.

In the last two and a half months alone, the original Genealogy Research Process Map post received 500 pageviews.  Version 2 of the map has only a few changes.  Besides fixing two typos, the arrows separating the 6 process steps where moved up next to the step headers.  I did this to help it look more like a timeline.  Looking at the map, there are three main “rows”: the circle diagram, the process timeline, and the process details.  The idea is to start in the middle of the diagram to understand the steps in the process: Define, Search, Cite, Analyze, Resolve, and Conclude. 

Then you can read the step details below or see the concepts and artifacts above with color coding to relate them to the steps.

Click to download the Genealogy Research Process Map – Version 2 (PDF – 9.05 MB)

A complete history of changes can be found at Genealogy Research Process Map History.

I will be presenting at the Family History Expo 2008 held in Mesa, Arizona on November 14-15.  The Expo is organized by My Ancestors Found.  My presentation is currently scheduled for Saturday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. and is titled: Navigating Research with the Genealogical Proof Standard.

Here is the short course description:

(Beginner – Experienced) This class discusses the Genealogical Proof Standard and walks the student through the process by way of a visualization called the Genealogy Research Process map. Each step is explored through case study and uses traditional and online resources.

This is the first time that a conference by My Ancestors Found is being held in Arizona.  This is exciting as it will be about an hour drive from where I live.  It is a bonus that I get to present.

I encourage all that can to attend this conference.  If you are interested, attend my presentation.  At the very least, say hello if you see me.

downloadable PDF (Dutch) – 8.1 MB

Note: Due to some technical difficulties, the podcast is temporarily available here.

 Myrt writes in part:

The public genealogy mailing list of APG, the Association of Professional Genealogists, has recently discussed a topic proposed by ThinkGenealogy.com’s Mark Tucker who asked: [APG] How Widely Used is the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS)?

When I posted the question to the APG list, I was in the final stages of developing the Genealogy Research Process map and was wondering what kind of reception it would receive.  It has been well received.

 Thank you Myrt for the recognition.

The Genealogy Research Map (downloadable PDF – 11.4 MB) combines the concepts found in The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) from the Board for Certification of Genealogists and the many works of Elizabeth Shown Mills into a single visualization.  It is my hope that others will find this map useful as a learning tool or reference. 

For those interested in a format for use as desktop wallpaper, follow this link.

Instead of singing:

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not ours, to see

I sang:

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not hard to see

This personal joke has been used many times since then and has never failed to deliver a cheerful effect.

I think that the author and design leader, Bill Buxton, would agree that the “future’s not hard to see.” In his book, “Sketching User Experiences: getting the design right and the right design,” Bill stresses the importance of looking at least 5 years down the road when designing user experiences and adds:

Now most people say that you cannot predict the future, much less five years out. They use this as an excuse for not making the effort, or even contemplating it. I believe that this reflects a lack of training, technique, or responsibility on the part of design or management. (page 209)

He then goes on to quote William Gibson from an NPR interview on 30 November 1999:

… the future is already here. It’s just not very evenly distributed.

Buxton gives two examples. The first computer mouse was built in 1964 but didn’t reach widespread use until about 1995 – 30 years later. The idea for the CD came around 1965 but it wasn’t until 25 years later in 1990 that the industry reached $1 billion. From idea, to design, to prototype, to first production, to ubiquity takes time.

Bill then makes this statement that I would like us to consider:

If history is any indication, we should assume that any technology that is going to have a significant impact over the next 10 years is already 10 years old. (page 215)

 This made me wonder if this could be applied to genealogy software. What has happened over the last 10 years that could affect the design and innovation of genealogy software over the next 10 years?

At first nothing came to mind, but then I thought of Elizabeth Shown Mills’ book, “Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian” which was published in 1997. In 2007, the much expanded “Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace” was released. We are now beginning to see specific examples of Elizabeth’s work showing up in genealogy software. In a podcast interview by Dick Eastman, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens indicated that the software Clooz version 2.x was influenced by handouts she received from Elizabeth Shown Mills. Another example is from a podcast by DearMYRTLE where she interviews Geoff Rasmussen about Legacy version 7. In this interview, Geoff gives a sneak peek of one of the major new features which is source citation following the standard set by Elizabeth Shown Mills. There is still much work that needs to be done in this area such as online databases providing better source citations. I talk about this in my previous post about Jumping Curves. So you see, the future is not so hard to see.

Another area that I want to point out is the Genealogical Proof Standard which was also created in 1997 by the Board for Certification of Genealogists. Other than its use in the certification process, you don’t hear much about it. But this standard is useful to researchers of all levels to help them get as close to the truth as possible. At some point genealogy software designers and developers will realize this and incorporate it into future genealogy software.

There are probably many more examples of ideas, technology, and methodology that exists today that will help us better see the future of genealogy software.

What things should be added to this list?

As a genealogy community, I hope we aren’t thinking:

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not ours, to see

Share your thoughts as the future is ours to see.  I hope that is not hard to see.