John
This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while. The GPS is an excellent standard, for
people working for money it should be part of their contract. However,
for many newbies, some of whom have not had the best education, I think
that there needs to be some sort of translation in to the realties of
family history. Newbies want to see they tree grow or they give up and
leave the hobby. When I stand on a stall at a family history fair I
come across all sorts of failings. I try to suggest to beginners that
for ancestors born post 1837, they should have a minimum of three
primary pieces of evidence, more if possible, eg certificates and
censuses, that don't conflict. (You'll all see numerous problems in
this - it implies working in England, the data wasn't lost or lied
about, etc, etc.) Pre-1837, in England, you have to take less and less
evidence the further back in time you go. Which is why we end up with
the 'preponderance of the evidence' line.
Moving swiftly on, most family tree programs now include
citations/sources to be included. Newbies need to be encouraged to use
these facilities, from the moment they get started. And use them for
each and every person for every fact.
Analysis and correlation of the facts brings more problems. To be able
to analyse, a person need knowledge and experience. (Not knowing that
surname spelling can change causes all sorts of problems. And yes it
happens!)
Resolution of conflicting evidence is something that many of us do, by
one means or another, probably with out thinking about it. But do we
write it down? Probably not, at least not in an academic sense.
So what am I arguing for?
* If you're a newbie join a local family history group - even if you
have no one in that area. You can bounce ideas off people, ask for
help on sources or how to resolve conflicts. If you are
experienced - join your local group, the newbies need your help.
* Read and read and read on the subject: books, magazines, the internet.
* Make contact with distant relatives, also studying common
ancestors and try your ideas out on them. Be prepared to be told
you made a mistake. And conversely, be prepared to,
diplomatically, suggest that they have made an error.
* Besides your family tree program, use surname databases to make
sure you can easily access the data you have collected.
* Problems, concerns and conflicts can be put into the notes files
in family tree programs.
* Create dummy family trees where you can test out theories, without
contaminating the main tree.
* Put a copy of the GPS at the front of your research notes, where
you can see it.
Kind regards
Mike Yegwart
Branch Chairman
Bromsgrove BMSGH
http://www.bromsgrovebmsgh.co.uk/
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:00:19 +0100
From: "John Ball" <john(a)jlb2005.plus.com>
Subject: [POWYS] What is Genealogical Proof?
To: "Powys List" <powys(a)rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <006001c77056$ba47e240$0201a8c0@JLBMeshPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Listers,
When investigating our family histories, I'm sure we sometimes wonder what
level of proof is needed in order to satisfy ourselves, and others, that our
research results are sound. Each conclusion we reach about an ancestor must
have sufficient credibility to be accepted as *proved*. Of course, to
satisfy ourselves we can set whatever standard of proof we wish, but to
satisfy others we need to work to a standard of proof which is widely
accepted in the field of genealogy.
Traditionally, genealogists have employed a standard of proof based closely
on the legal principle of 'preponderance of the evidence', which Black's Law
Dictionary defines as evidence which shows "...that what is sought to be
proved is more likely true than not true". The evidence available at the
time is weighed, and a decision is made based on whichever evidence is the
most convincing.
["Black's Law Dictionary" edited by J. R. Nolan and M. J. Connolly, 6th
edition published 1990, West Publishing Co., Minnesota; p. 1182]
However, unlike the law, genealogy is not constrained by deadlines (such as
the date of a court trial) at which time a decision on the evidence *must*
be made. If convincing evidence for a genealogical event is not available,
we can always delay making a decision or drawing a conclusion until we are
able to find suitable evidence. And if no suitable evidence comes to light,
we can say "not known".
Over the past decade or so, genealogists, particularly in North America,
have moved away from the legal principle of 'preponderance of the evidence',
to a standard of proof which is more relevant to the circumstances
prevailing in family history research. This standard of proof has become
known as the 'Genealogical Proof Standard' or 'GPS'.
The Genealogical Proof Standard sets out the requirements that genealogists
must satisfy before using the terms 'proved' or 'proof'. The GPS is
usually
described in five stages. The first four stages relate to the way
genealogical evidence must be tested before reaching a conclusion, while the
final stage relates to how that conclusion must be constructed and written.
The five stages require:
1. a reasonably exhaustive search for evidence;
2. complete and accurate source citations;
3. analysis and correlation of the collected information;
4. resolution of any conflicting evidence; and
5. a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.
The GPS has become the accepted standard in genealogy in North America since
1997/98. It is clearly and fully explained on the website of the [US] Board
for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) at
http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html
It is an interesting and sometimes sobering exercise to see how one's own
family history research measures up to the Genealogical Proof Standard!
Kind regards,
John