Friday, March 2, 2012

Am I an Evidence-Based Genealogist or Conclusion-Based Genealogist?


In his post “Are you an Evidence-Based or a Conclusion Based Researcher?” Randy Seaver brought up some interesting points about how we enter facts into our genealogy software and come to conclusions about what information from which sources for each fact is more true. He describes an “Evidence-based” user as one who enters information about a birth source, for example, from five different sources, as five different facts. This user then comes to a conclusion about which fact is most true and makes it a “preferred” fact in their software. The “Conclusion-based” user, on the other hand, evaluates all the evidence or sources and picks the best one, thereby reaching a conclusion as to which fact is most true. This user then creates one fact and cites one source (or multiple sources) for this one fact or conclusion.

I like to consider myself to be somewhat of a hybrid. Because I do sometimes like to use the report functions of my Rootsmagic software, I don’t like to enter more than one version of each fact. Having 5 instances of the Birth fact, for example, clogs up my narrative report and makes it difficult for me to read and understand. Instead I enter 1 fact and if there are differences within the evidence I’ve evaluated, I try to capture that within my fact description, citations, and notes.

For example, with the case of my brick wall, William Edward Peters, I have one Birth fact listed for him. I usually list the most specific information I have found, in this case, my birth fact says William was born 10 Mar 1874 in Thomasville, Oregon Co., MO.





For each piece of evidence I create a source citation and in the detail text field, I add the text that provides birth date and place information. In the screen shot below, the obituary from the Pocahontas Star Herald stated that William was born in Thomasville, MO on March 10, 1874.



Here is a table of information I collected about William’s birth. I used a total of six pieces of evidence or sources.

Birth Date
Mar 1877
1900 Census, Highland Twp., Oregon Co., MO
Abt 1875
1910 Census, Big Apple Twp., Oregon Co., MO, taken April 28, 1910: lists his age as 35; 1910-35=b. 1875
Abt 1872
1920 Census, Thayer Twp., Oregon Co., MO, taken Jan 6, 1920, lists his age as 48; 1920-48 = 1872
Abt 1873
1930 Census, Bristow, Randolph Co., AR, taken Apr 15, 1930, lists his age as 57; 1930-57=1873
Mar 10, 1874
Obituary Pocahontas Star, Feb 3, 1948
Mar 10, 1874
Death Certificate, William E Peters, Feb 3, 1948




Birth Place
IL
1900 Census, Highland Twp., Oregon Co., MO
IL
1910 Census, Big Apple Twp., Oregon Co., MO
IL
1920 Census, Thayer Twp., Oregon Co., MO
MO
1930 Census, Bristow, Randolph Co., AR
Thomasville, MO
Obituary Pocahontas Star, Feb 3, 1948
Thomasville, MO
Death Certificate, William E Peters, Feb 3, 1948

In the notes field for the Birth fact, I then analyze all pieces of evidence and state which pieces corroborate or contradict each other. I will usually indicate whether I think one piece weighs more than the other based on time it was created or from whom the information was provided.
Here are the notes I compiled about the six sources I analyzed about the birth of William Peters.



This is what my Rootsmagic narrative reports would look like if I had created a new birth fact for every piece of evidence I analyzed or encountered:



I really don’t like the way this example reads and says he “was born” six different times! Instead I prefer the more narrative approach with all of the facts listed within my source citations’ detailed text fields in the footnotes or endnotes of my report. A report with one fact listed and all six sources cited with the evidence analyzed and written up in the birth notes section looks like this:



Rootsmagic does have the capability of identifying one fact as the preferred or primary fact as Randy learned in his later post, however, in my Rootsmagic report, all six of the birth facts are still listed, even when one is identified as the primary fact.

So in conclusion, I consider myself to be an evidence-based genealogist, however:
·         I do NOT enter my evidence as separate facts.
·         I do, however enter them as separate sources under one umbrella fact.
·         In the example above, I used the most specific date and place.
·         However, if I had copied a specific date and place of birth for an ancestor from someone else’s family file off the internet, with no other corroborating evidence to support that information, I would probably not enter it as a fact in my database.
·         If I only have census reports as evidence and they say three different years of birth, I would simply state birth as between the lowest and highest year. In the case of my ancestor William Peters, discussed above, I would state “bet. 1872-1877” for date of birth.
·         Places of birth are trickier for me and I have not yet decided on a course of action. In the case of William Peters discussed above, I initially put “Missouri or Illinois” in the place of birth field. However that screws up my place list. So in that example, I might create two separate facts, one for Illinois and one for Missouri.

And why am I an Evidence-Based genealogist? Frankly because I love the records and what better way to show the love than to cite them and include them in all facts containing the information they reference?

So what are you? Do you evaluate and include every piece of evidence in your software and reports and analysis or do you determine your conclusion and use one piece of evidence to support that claim?

27 comments:

  1. Ginger, my practice is very similar to yours. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Amy, I'm glad I'm not alone! and Happy Birthday!!!!

      Delete
  2. What a great post! I think you've very clearly captured the issue and I also think beginning genealogist should read this - shows a wonderful way to not only evaluate what they are seeing, but also how to capture it in a meaningful way. Thanks!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Diana, I think it's good that we are sharing how we do things and people like Randy and I who are not afraid to show how we do things. The way I see it, the more examples, the better and the more informed we are.

      Delete
  3. Hi Ginger,

    Excellent examples and comments. What you do is pretty much what I have done over time in my database. It's been only the last few months, while i've been working with Russ Worthington, that I've even considered the evidence-based concept. However, I don't add as many Fact notes as you apparently do.

    Who knows what the next "really great" genealogy software will permit or require. Or the next GEDCOM standard. Our discussion now will help us deal with them when they become reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Randy, yes, and I've only started adding fact notes more recently as well. Especially since they can be incorporated into the reports more seamlessless now.

      Delete
  4. Ginger,

    Great blog post. Welcome to the discussion.

    I was a little concerned about the Narrative. Please know that Roots Magic is not my primary genealogy management software, but I did remember the Roots Magician make a comment about the Primary Fact.

    I did a little checking and saw a Note in the Help menu, that it only appears to be active in a Pedigree Chart.

    I could not find an option to use the Primary Fact in the Narrative reports.

    Thanks again.

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Russ, yeah, I think Randy mentioned this in his post that he could not figure out how to turn off the alternative facts in his reports. You can turn off the alternative name, but that's it.

      Delete
    2. Hi, Ginger and Russ! Unless I am misunderstanding something, the way to turn off facts in RM5 is to go to Lists>Fact Type List, highlight the fact type (i.e. Alt. Birth) you want to exclude from the narrative, click on edit, and then uncheck "Narrative reports" under the section titled "Include when." Of course, it turns off the fact type for every single person for all narrative reports in the database, so if you want to include it on a later narrative report, you have to go back and check the box. I would prefer if there was an option to turn it off at the report level instead of at the fact type level. Then it could just be excluded from the current report instead of all future narrative reports for all people.

      Delete
  5. Great post, Ginger!

    I've only just started paying attention to the reporting side of my software. I've always used charts and written a narrative to go with them when sharing with relatives. But I'm sharing far more now that I'm blogging. It would be lovely to use the produced reports.

    At this point each source is entered as a unique fact, producing awkward narratives similar to your first example. My narratives/analyses are in the notes section. You've provided a great model for me to use in revising my data. And another task....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Susan, I like to have the evidence displayed both as sources to a single fact and in my general note section, that way if I do want to create a report on my own outside of my gen software, I can just copy and paste everything that is in my general note. Kind of like how you are doing it.

      Delete
  6. Hi Ginger,

    Excellent presentation about requirements and your process. What I call my work around is not unlike yours (typically one event related to a series of working file citations).

    Dare me to want more or better! I create a record of negative and indirect evidence, and I record circumstantial evidence, too Like you, I record conflict notes, make proof summaries and/or arguments … .

    There is much to like about concepts in what some technologists refer to as "evidence-based" entry systems (I prefer the term record-based). For example, (1) The record based approach probably does encourage users to enter source information, … especially because/and (2) the related technologies will probably support record capture (we'll be able capture data about people, events and source in our software without filling out so many forms).

    Those systems, however, seem to develop lists of "data." I commented elsewhere that my research involves is more than capturing record-based data, ala, it's more than just "search and capture." This includes that I don't recognize every bit of data to be evidence and my working file should support me as I endeavor to sort out the good, the bad and the ugly.

    Thank you for your article. --GeneJ

    P.S. In addition to beginning genealogists, I hope the technologists listening will read this too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi GeneJ, I also record negative evidence. This is especially helpful when I interact with newly befriended researchers who ask me "Have you seen source X?" and I can tell them yes, and this was my analysis of it or stay away from that source because of Y...

      Delete
  7. @Susan Clark ... "At this point each source is entered as a unique fact, producing awkward narratives similar to your first example."

    It's not limited to narratives--how many of us want family groups sheets that report three different set of biological parents. Humm.. how do you generate a "genealogy" for someone with three different sets of biological parents?

    I call in the Frankenstein complex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mind boggles.

      This is where I go back to Russ Worthington's earlier post about data entry. I don't enter data or records in the software unless I am clear it refers to a specific individual. Records suggesting different parents live in my Excel research log until they are analyzed/reconciled. My notes then refer to the other records and explain my decision not to use them - usually outlining the multiple John Does appearing in the records.

      The majority of my analysis is not done in the software but in Excel and Word. I find all the databases far too limited. I suppose that makes me evidence/record based but using the genealogy software to record conclusions.

      Delete
  8. This discussion is very useful to me, thanks to you all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheryl, you are very welcome. Feel free to ask any questions or share your experiences as well!

      Delete
  9. Hi Susan, that's exactly what I told Randy when he asked should he have 12 entries in his database for Devier J. Smith. That no, I didn't believe he should have 12 entries in his genealogy database. I have lots of evidence about several Nathan Godwins from Sampson Co., NC, but because I don't know which piece goes with which Nathan, including my own ancestor, I have collected all of the evidence in an excel spreadsheet. That is what I use to compare and contrast. I only have them attached to a "Nathan Godwin." These pieces of evidence do not go into my genealogy software until I am sure they belong to my particular Nathan Godwin, ie, one document identifies a relationship in terms of naming his brother or children. Land deeds and grants are the only pieces of evidence beyond vital records (and vital records are not existent in this time and place) that I have been able to track and confidently place in my gen software. So my answer is this: I use a combination of both genealogy software and computer resources like MS Word and Excel to save, track, and work with my evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, Ginger! Military rosters, for example, are so problematic if there are men sharing the same name. One roster - three Philip Mulkeys. I've never understood how one could assert which was the correct man without significantly more information.

      Delete
  10. Hi Jennifer, the only fact I found in my fact list was Alt Name. Is the Alt Birth new to RM5? I'm still using RM4. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used the alternate facts in RM4, but I am starting to think that all the alternate facts (except the name) were facts that transferred over from my Legacy import. I used Legacy through Sep 2009 and then imported the file directly into RM4. That must be why all the alternate facts, other than alternate name, in my fact type list are called "Alt. Death," "Alt. Birth," etc., but yet the alternate name fact is actually called "Alternate name." I wondered why the word "alternate" was abbreviated on the other alternate facts, and now I know why. I guess my idea only works if you imported the alternate facts from another file or create your own alternate facts.

      In any event, I LOVE this blog post. I made a .pdf copy of it and saved it to my organization file. I think I am going to start employing the same methods once I get my source citations cleaned up. I really like the analysis that is done in the notes, and I also hate all those birth facts that show up in narrative reports. I think the method will work well with the new research log feature in RM5.

      Delete
    2. Hi Jennifer, thanks for clearing up about the alt facts. I had some weird stuff import from FTM into RM as well but I don't remember ever seeing them show up in the fact list. I will have to go back and look through them and maybe compare to a blank database to see what the differences are.

      I am still playing with the reports and notes features of RM. Basically what I did was write up a report in Word on my own and then tried to find a way to make RM look just like my report. I did try to look at other softwares but found that they act pretty much the same.

      RM does have a nice research notes report function that could be very powerful but there was one part of it that I did not like at all. I can't remember what it was but I think it had to do with the fact that the source name was separated from the notes about the source (it's in the footnotes). That just seemed really dis-intuitive to me.

      Thanks for reading and commenting. Let us know what you decide to do or what works for you and why you did it because I love to see how other people do things. Like I said, I had previously just used Word documents, but now that I've done the Family Finder DNA test, it's nice to have a report I can run and send off quickly and easily!

      Delete
    3. All my sources are attached to persons in my RootsMagic v 5. I use the RM4/5 Research notes a lot. But I transfer them to a .rtf file in Word and take the time to put the citations with the Detailed Text, then I am looking at all the information in one place instead of up and down the page looking for the right footnote. Could use Excel with this instead of Word.

      Narrative Reports are my favorite part of this software. I create small family books for reunions using the Narrative Reports. Sentences need to be worded just right. But FO/RM has done the job for me since FO. Also I transfer the N R to a Word processing software, to fix it the way I want it to look.

      I also use one fact type like birth, with many sources attached. I created fact type 'alt Birth' as a trigger that tells me I need to look further as this is a different date and place which needs to be resolved.

      GEdcoms are an issue for me as many do not have sources attached. If there is no real valid information, I have added a fact 'suggested by' and the source is the Gedcom. Then if I find valid information, it still stays there with other valid sources.

      In one of the blogs, someone mentioned using GenQuiry at GenQuirydotcom. Am trying it to see if it will help. I use Excel a lot but not for resolving issues more for indexes.

      This has been an interesting topic... Thanks for sharing

      Delete
    4. Hi Nettie, thanks so much for commenting. I used to enter the entire citations within the Detailed Text of each citation AND within the fact's notes, or rather, within the person's notes. That way I could run my own sort of research report by just copying all the contents of the person notes into a word file and then not have to use footnotes either. However, I stopped adding the entire citation to the detailed text of the citation when I switched to RM because it would not run reports anymore with footnotes with such long citations that were imported from FTM 2009. (some kind of unfixed bug). But that is a good workaround to making a good and useful research log in RM. Otherwise, the Research Log is not useful without the name of the source being listed with the detailed text and fact information (without having to scroll down to the footnote). Thank you for sharing.

      Delete
    5. Hi, Ginger! I finally posted about using your hybrid evidence/conclusion method in my database. http://jennifergenealogy.blogspot.com/2013/05/changing-way-i-create-facts-in.html

      Delete
  11. Ginger, I do the same practice. When I first migrated my database from FTM16 to RM3, I was appalled the first time I ran a narrative report. I'm still cleaning it up, person by person ~ very frustrating. [Even after migrating to RM4. I've held off on RM5. I want more features.] However, I don't think we should have to clean it up. What we found is what we found. The narrative report should be able to reflect that.

    This is why I advocate technology support researchers as they truly research. In other words, it should adapt to us, and not we adapt to it. And the next time I spend money to buy genealogy database software, the technology is going to support me and how I work. Why else buy it? I don't have relatives who want reports unfortunately. And? If someone wanted something, I'd probably try to figure out a way to get it to them digitally.

    It all depends on each person's research workflow.

    ~C

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caroline, oh I'm surprised you are using RM. I thought you were using FTM. I had a huge problem with the FTM 2009 to RM transfer because I used to put all my notes in the detail text of my source citations. When I transferred over to RM and would run a report with footnotes at the end of each page, RM would crash. I think it has to do with the source citations being so long. So I have to re-write all of my source citations or not run a report with footnotes. Have you seen this problem?

      If I were to write this report in Word by hand, I would probably have long footnotes. But in order to "accommodate" the genealogy software like you said, I started putting my "notes" in the notes section of each fact instead of in my source citations. Sigh...so many "workarounds!"

      Delete