Earlier today I posted the following to the APG list on RootsWeb:

There exists confusion in the current genealogy literature on the definition of an original source.

For this discussion I would like to focus only on the definition of original source and not derivatives, common derivatives (transcript, extract, abstract), or derivatives that can be treated as originals (image copy, record copy, or duplicate originals). I want to focus on the source – the container, the person, the paper, the stone, the object. Not the information contained in it (as much as possible) and its classification as primary or secondary. Also I don’t want to focus on how that information relates to the research question (i.e. the evidence and whether it is direct, indirect, or negative).

The 4 main sources that genealogists can turn to for a definition of original source are: Evidence! (1997), The BCG Standards Manual (2000), Professional Genealogy (2001), and Evidence Explained (2007). But using these sources can be contradictory and confusing. Is this due to the refinement of the definition over the years?

Let’s look at some specifics.

Evidence!

On page 49 of Evidence! the word material is used instead of sources, but the definition is useful:
“Original material, as defined by the purist, is based on firsthand knowledge – be it oral or written.”
The main criteria identified is: firsthand knowledge

The BCG Standards Manual

As the GPS was formalized, The BCG Standards Manual defined original sources (see page 8 ) as:
“the person or record whose information did not come from data already spoken or written.”
The main criteria: first occurrence of information

Professional Genealogy

The next year, Professional Genealogy was published which includes Chapter 17, “Evidence Analysis”. On page 333, we find the definition of an original source as:
“In genealogical terms, original sources are those that meet two criteria.
They are made at or near the time of the event, and their informants are in a position to know the facts firsthand.”
So a two-pronged test must be passed in order for a source to be original.
Criteria: timeliness and firsthand knowledge

Evidence Explained

In 2007, the definition changes to focus on form as found in Evidence Explained. The research process map inside the front cover has “form” written under both original and derivative. We find a definition of original source in three places:
. page 24: “Original sources – material in its first oral or recorded form”
. page 826: “original source: a source that is still in its first recorded or uttered form.”
. page 828: “source: … Sources are broadly classified as either an original source (q.v.) or a derivative source (q.v.), depending upon their physical form.”
The main criteria: physical form

So it appears that now a single-question test would be sufficient to classify a source as original:
“From what was this source derived?”
If the answer doesn’t reveal another source, then it is an original.

In an APG discussion, Elizabeth Shown Mills indicates that “Original sources can have secondhand information.” An example is an original death certificate that contains primary information of the death but secondary information of the birth. A question that I haven’t seen answered is:
“Can an original source contain ONLY secondary information?”
What would be an example? If that case is true, then only the definition in Evidence Explained is useful. Otherwise you mix the classification of source with that for information.

Primary Source

Another point I want to bring out from Evidence Explained is the definition of primary source found on pages 22-23:
“PRIMARY SOURCE
. one created by someone with firsthand knowledge . one created at or about the time an event occurred Within this framework, contradictions abound between theory and practice, causing ambiguous analyses and unreliable conclusions.”

It appears that the reason primary source is discussed is to identify its weaknesses and show why original source is preferable in genealogy research.
The problem stems from the two-prong test of firsthand knowledge and timeliness. If a source came from someone with firsthand knowledge but was created long after the event in question, the test would fail. Or, if the source was create near the time of the event, but the informant had secondhand knowledge, then the test would also fail. The strength of the single test of physical form for an original source is its simplicity on focusing on the object that is the source and not the informant, his/her knowledge, or the information.

What is confusing is that what Evidence Explained defines as a primary source with its problems is the same definition that Professional Genealogy uses for original source.

My inclination is that this progression of definitions is a refinement of understanding over the years and that the current accepted definition of original source focuses only on physical form. And as the other three guides are revised, they will share the definition currently found only in Evidence Explained.

The Back Story

Now let me tell you the back story that produced this examination of the definition of original source. In a recent presentation aimed at teaching beginning researchers the Genealogical Proof Standard, the question came up as to whether a grave marker is an original or derivative source. In preparation for the presentation (and as part of a study assignment for the ProGen Study Group) I shared the two-pronged test defined in Professional Genealogy, Chapter 17. Because it was a double marker and the wife died three decades after the husband, the class questioned the timeliness part of the test. I sensed that there was still a little confusion on this point and have wrestled with this question since then. There has to be a way that beginners can confidently determine if a source is original or not.

As it so happens, this month’s ProGen Study Group assignment includes reading the first chapter of Evidence Explained. That is when I noticed the possible shift toward physical form and a single test. I had read the chapter a few times before, but now I saw it differently. Now a single test, that is something that I think beginners can understand!

So in the grave marker case, what would it be derived from? One answer could be nothing, in which case it is an original. In some cases a new grave marker is created to replace an old one. I don’t feel that happened in this case. It would be something to check out. When my mother passed away, we worked with the mortuary to design the grave marker and then months later it was created. We verified the paperwork and later the grave marker to make sure all information was as we expected. So, was the marker inscription a granite-carved extract from the original paperwork or more likely a duplicate original? In either case, things are less problematic and I feel comfortable classifying the grave marker as an original source.

Classifying Sources with Evidence Explained?

Something else I noticed in my latest browsing of Evidence Explained.
Chapter 5 deals with Cemetery Records and on page 207 is summarized the QuickCheck models which are grouped in three categories: Cemetery Office Records, Markers & Memorials (Originals), and Derivatives. So it appears in this case I don’t have to worry about things too much and can call the grave marker an original source because Evidence Explained classifies it as such.
I think that for beginners using Evidence Explained as a crutch is acceptable as they gain confidence is classifying sources using the physical form test. So my recommendation for beginners would be to 1) try to determine if a source is original or derivative on their own and come up with an answer, 2) look up the source in Evidence Explained and if original or derivative is specified compare it with their answer. If they don’t match, try to determine why it might be the other classification.

Other chapters that appear to at least partially classify sources as original or derivative (or image copy) are: Ch 6 – Census Records, Ch 7 – Church Records, Ch 8 – Local & State Records: Courts & Governance, Ch 10 – Local & State Records: Property & Probates, Ch 11- National Government Records, and Ch 12 – Publications (Books, CDs, Maps, Leaflets & Videos).

Too bad there is not a growing master list of record types with classifications as: original, derivative, image copy, duplicate original, and record copy.

Now, two hours later, I have down in words what has been swarming in my head for weeks. I look forward to learning from your understanding and experience.

Update:

Follow the discussion on the APG list.

Oh how the months go by.  Back in October 2008, we completed ProGen Study group assignment #7 and I am just getting around to blogging about it.

The original plan was to cover Chapters 14 and 15 of ProGen, but that proved to be too big of an assignment, so we tackled only one chapter.

You can find this in Professional Genealogy in:

• Chapter 14 - Problem Analysis and Research Plans by Helen F. M. Leary, CG, CGL, FASG

The chapter discusses two different types of analysis: preliminary and detailed.

Preliminary Analysis

The purpose of the preliminary analysis phase is to determine if the professional researcher should accept an assignment or not.  During this phase we should:

1. See if the work requested matches our business plan
2. Determine if the project fits in with our time and fee schedules
3. Consider the consequences of accepting or declining the project and what additional details might be needed to make a final decision

Detailed Analysis

Once the project is accepted and before any research begins,  we need to analyze the available information and create a research plan.  This is the purpose of the detailed analysis phase.

During this phase it is helpful to make a series of lists including 1) Questions to ask the client, 2) Things to Find Out and 3) Records to check.  Time is spent identifing the principal person that is the subject of the project and as much information about that person as possible including:

• Alternative name spellings
• Known birth, marriage, and death facts
• Parents
• Children
• Places of residence
• Major life event for project

The chapter also briefly discusses mathematical analysis, time-line analysis, psychological analysis, and client-skill analysis.  In addition it mentions different types of “studies”: handwriting, land-records, and whole-family (or neighborhood).

Research Plans

The last part of the chapter discusses the development of a research plan.

I found this chapter very helpful especially as a prepared for a presentation in November 2008 that included a case study of my great-grandfather, Worth Tucker.

The assignment was to pick a research problem, do a preliminary analysis and develop a research plan.

My completed homework assignment can be found here (Word document, 100 KB).

This month the ProGen study groups studied a single topic: Time Management

You can find this in Professional Genealogy in:

• Chapter 13 – Time Management by Patricia Law Hatcher, CG, FASG

A key paragraph at the beginning of the chapter states:

“Dozens of times each day we make decisions – consciously or unconsciously – to begin, continue, or terminate various activities. Many of the time management problems genealogists face do not have solutions, but if we recognize the problems, we can make more informed decisions.”

The rest of the chapter identifies and discusses 10 problems that genealogists face:

1. Creating boundaries
2. Identifying clients
3. Organizing time
4. Planning for unbillable time
5. Cutting time waste
6. Identifying procrastination
7. Making time for growth
8. Saying “no”
9. Giving away time
10. Controlling the inquiring mind

As an additional resource, we were encouraged to watch a time management lecture given by Professor Randy Pausch and review the accompanying PowerPoint slides (11 MB).  This lecture was given in 2007 after Randy knew he was dying of cancer. 

Also provided was a link to an article titled, “The Pickle Jar Theory.”   This reminded me a lot of the “big rocks” story from Stephen R. Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

Practical Assignment

Our assignment this month was pretty straight forward 1) keep a time journal for a week, 2) identify time “thieves”, and 3) begin eliminating wasted time.

Thanks to a dedicated group member, I quickly received a time journal Word template via e-mail and started tracking my time.  Each weekday is pretty much the same:

• Wake up/get ready/breakfast
• Help get our children off to school
• Work
• Dinner/family time
• Personal time
• Bed time

Throw into that some early morning work meetings, Family Home Evening, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Date night and that is pretty much it.  But by tracking the time, I was able to identify and put a number to some of my major time bandits.

So here are my top 3 time bandits:

 A member of my group, Randy Seaver, kept a time log for two weeks and blogged about it on Genea-Musings.

Discussion Group

It was interesting to talk about the time thieves of others. Many from our group included e-mails, Facebook, blogs, and other internet trappings.

For the past few months at work, I have helped facilitate teaching the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People one-day course.  Habit 3 is “Put First Things First” which talks about the Time Management Matrix.  This how I summarized this concept during our chat:

Has anyone read “7 Habits” where Covey talks about the four quadrants of activities?

imagine a square subdivided into 4 squares

across the top is Urgent, Not Urgent

down the left is Important, Not Important

Q1 – urgent, important

this is crises, pressing problems, deadlines

A lot of us work in Q1, sometimes because of procrastination

Q3 – urgent, not important

just let those things go: interruptions, some e-mails, other people’s tasks put on you

Q4 – not important, not urgent

time wasters, too much tv, internet , etc

Q2 – important, not urgent

this is often neglected due to Q3, Q4

to get more time above the line (Q1, Q2) we eliminate Q3,Q4 activities

Q2 is also the area for recharging: physical, mental, social, spiritual

Overall it was another great discussion and I feel that the members of our group are wonderful.

For October we will be beginning the section on professional research skills.  I am really looking forward to learning more.

If you want to follow my experience in reverse order, follow the link to ProGen Study Group #5.

It is hard to believe that we have finished our fifth and now sixth month of the study group.  I am a little behind in reporting month five. Here is a link back to ProGen Study Group #4.

Our reading assignment from Professional Genealogy was:

• Chapter 6 – Executing Contracts by Patricia Gilliam Hastings J.D.
• Chapter 10 – Setting Realistic Fees by Sandra Hargreaves Luebking

In chapter 6, the author discusses the need for a contract and breaks it down into its essential elements.  The chapter gives two sample formal contracts for genealogical lecturing and research services.  As a less formal alternative, there is a sample agreement for genealogical research services in letter form.

In chapter 10 we read about the process of setting realistic fees:

1. Identify annual salary needs
2. Calculate annual expenses
3. Set a profit margin over and above salary
4. Determine billable hours
5. Calculate hourly fee
6. Evaluate and adjust

Practical Assignment

This month the assignment came in two parts:

Part 1 (Chapter 6)

The assignment was to write a draft of a client contract.  I found the contract for the genealogical lecturing services more interesting.  I did my first presentation earlier this year at BYU’s Family History Technology Workshop and will be presenting at a local conference in November put on by My Ancestors Found.  In both those cases, the conference already defined the terms of the contract.  I came across a page on the FGS site that outlines their policy for conference speakers.

So it appears that most (if not all) conferences already have a predefined contract for speakers.  I suppose you might need to write your own contract if you were seeking speaking engagements at local and state genealogical societies.  I don’t see this in the near future, but when that time comes I will probably combine the example from Elizabeth Shown Mills on page 115-117 of Professional Genealogy with the policy from FGS.

Part 2 (Chapter 10)

This assignment was to use this formula to set or evaluate the fees we charge our clients: 

Hourly Fee = (Salary + Expenses + Profit) / Billable Hours

 Since research isn’t my emphasis, this formula doesn’t apply.  In commercial software we do need to figure out how much to charge for the piece of software and determine how many software licenses one is likely to sell.  In an attempt to better understand the industry, I contacted the owners of two of the top genealogy software applications and asked a few questions.  Representatives from both companies shared some details about how they got involved with genealogy software, but neither shared any formulas for setting the price for their software.

Discussion Group

We continued to gel as a group and find that the discussion time passes quickly and with much laughter.

I have been posting for the last 6 months about the ProGen study group and my experiences.  It has been a wonderful experience.  The content is great but what is even better is getting to know the members of your group.  We have formed friendships over these months. 

Well, today my group did something wonderful for me and I truly appreciate it.  I won’t go into the details but I did want to publically tell them “Thank you!”  If we weren’t spread out across the nation, I would bake you a yummy batch of brownies.  Thank you Sheri, Elissa, Randy, Tina, and Jeff.