Chapter 3: Genealogical Analysis and Conclusions

You will study GPS 3, GPS 4, and GPS 5 in this chapter. You will learn the following:

• What it means to analyze and correlate sources, information items, and evidence
• How to resolve conflicting evidence
• Why it is important to write a genealogical conclusion
• What is required for good genealogical writing

GPS 3 Thorough Analysis and Correlation

The third element of the Genealogical Proof Standard is to test "through processes of analysis and correlation—all sources, information items, and evidence contributing to an answer to a genealogical question or problem.”¹ To understand this element better, let's break it down into parts.

Types of Tests

All research must go through two types of tests:

• Analysis
• Correlation

Analysis

The definition of analysis is a “detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features: a thorough study.”² So, as a researcher, you must thoroughly examine a genealogical problem, as well as what was used to answer the problem.

Correlation

The definition of correlation is “the state or relation of being correlated, specifically: a relation existing between phenomena or things … which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone.”³ So, as a researcher, you should determine how a research question and the items that help answer a research question are connected or related and must do so in a way that shows the items are not connected just by chance. Correlation is often accomplished through the use of charts, tables, timelines, maps, lists, and so on.

Analyzing and Correlating Sources, Information Items, and Evidence

To successfully meet this third element of the GPS, you must analyze and correlate 1) sources, 2) information items, and 3) evidence to find their logical and real relationship.

Sources

Sources are the items that may contain answers to genealogical questions. For example, sources are books, journals, certificates, documents, and so on.

• We analyze a source to determine if it is an original document, a derivative document (information copied from an original into another document), or an authored narrative (a compilation of original or derivative records).
• We correlate or compare each source to note their differing levels of reliability and accuracy.

Information Items

Information items are the pieces of information within a source that may answer a genealogical question. For example, information items are a paragraph within a book, a specific day’s entry in a journal, the marriage date line in a marriage certificate, a listing of children in a will, and so on.

• We analyze information by deciding who the informant was and how close to the event the informant reported information. (Was the informant an eyewitness to the event? Or was it someone who heard about the event? Was the birth date found in a birth certificate, or was the birth date found on the death certificate?)
• When we correlate information through the use of charts, tables, timelines, and so on, we are able to make connections between each piece of information to see whether or not the information relates to our research subject.

Evidence

Evidence is how the information items help answer the research question. For example, the marriage date on a marriage certificate is evidence which answers a research question asking when a particular couple was married.

• We analyze evidence by deciding if it answers the research question either directly or when combined with other evidence (indirectly). There can also be negative evidence, such as when expected information is missing from a census record, tax record, and so on.
• We correlate the evidence we find to see how that information relates to and answers our research question.

GPS 4 Resolution of Conflicting Evidence

Imagine you are putting together a puzzle.⁴ As you put the pieces together, you begin to see the image you are expecting. However, as you get closer to finishing, you have two or three pieces that don’t seem to fit. You try to make them work, but it is only when you finally set them to the side that you are able to finish the puzzle.

Sometimes when you are conducting genealogical research, you will come across pieces that do not fit. All the evidence might point in one direction, but one piece is confusing because it doesn’t fit with all the rest. In genealogical research, we call this conflicting evidence. The Genealogical Proof Standard addresses conflicting evidence and its resolution. Genealogists do not simply ignore evidence that disagrees with their conclusion. They address and resolve the conflict by analyzing and correlating sources, information items, and evidence again to determine which is the most credible.

Please read Contradictions and Discrepancies (This article is written below). As you read, notice that experienced researchers do not ignore conflicts. They do the following: 

1. Acknowledge
2. Analyze
3. Explain the discrepancies

Contradictions and Discrepancies

Contradictory evidence and discrepancies are normal in genealogical research. A novice researcher tends to ignore discrepancies. Experienced researchers tend to embrace them.

The best way to analyze information is by thoroughly researching and comparing against each other all the sources about an ancestor and his family. Understanding how to interpret the sources cannot happen until a researcher has detected and analyzed the differences and similarities between sources. Pondering and explaining discrepancies and contradictions is a crucial part of the analysis process.

Any contradictory evidence must be resolved

The best researchers always openly acknowledge, analyze, and attempt to explain discrepancies. It shows the thoroughness of their research. Their openness with all the weaknesses of a case leads to better analysis and conclusions. It strengthens the genealogical community by setting an example of honesty, and pointing the way to better interpretation of the evidence.

If a researcher hesitates to use sources with contradictions or discrepancies, he may overlook important evidence. If he hesitates to mention discrepancies, his case looks weaker. Other researchers may come to believe evidence was overlooked, or that such research is unreliable.

Weigh these factors

As you analyze a contradiction or discrepancy, weigh the following factors from the (Optional) Wiki article Evaluate the Evidence to help determine which sources are most trustworthy, and to help explain possible causes of the problem: (the readings below are optional)

• Relevance of the Record 
• Category of the Record 
• Format of the Record 
• Nature of the Information
• Directness of the Evidence 
• Consistency and Clarity of the Facts 
• Likelihood of Events

Explain the problem and its resolution 

In some cases, the discrepancy may be so minor that it need only be mentioned. Minor spelling variations of a name usually only need to be acknowledged in the source notes.

Any past controversies researchers have had over the evidence should be acknowledged and the resolution of the problem explained.

When genealogical research is significantly affected by conflicting evidence, or when which lineage to follow hangs in the balance, a formal statement is in order. State the problem; explain how the evidence seems contradictory. Explain which version you believe is most reliable and why. Give one or more reasons why you believe the less reliable evidence was created.

Types of contradictions or discrepancies

There are some of the contradictions and discrepancies a genealogist typically faces:

Spelling 

Names and words are sometimes spelled different ways in genealogical documents. If you cannot find your ancestor’s name spelled several different ways, you probably have not yet learned how to search correctly.

Solution: Choose some way of consistently selecting a preferred spelling. Consistently use the spelling on the birth record, or the most predominant spelling, or some other criteria for displaying a spelling on your genealogical records. Mention the alternate spellings you find in source footnotes.

Names 

People and places sometimes have more than one name. People may go by their formal full name, by an alias, by married or maiden name, by a nickname, by middle name, by initials, or by an abbreviated name. Different languages and different cultures affect the way names appear in records.

Solution: Most of the time, name differences are somewhat obvious. For example, Bill for William. But when a genealogist finds a document for an ancestor with less obvious name change, it is best to explain why it is the same person.

Dates

Probably the most common cause of date differences is faulty memory. Usually, a date which was recorded near the time of an event is more reliable than a date recorded years later from memory. Also, calendar systems vary from place to place and from time to time. Be sure you understand the calendar your ancestor used, especially when the new year began, or when the switch was made from Julian to Gregorian calendar.

Solution: Weighing all the factors in favor of and against the reliability of documents with conflicting dates for the same event, choose the one you judge to be most reliable. Use it on your genealogy, and explain what accounts for the others in footnotes.

Places

Boundaries and place names sometimes change. As a result of boundary changes, a family living in the same house over a lifetime may have had to visit three or four county seats to conduct their business. The same town may sometimes go by Indian or a different European name. Researchers often give modern names for places that went by a different name at the time of the event–for example, pre-Civil War West Virginia.

Solution: Decide to consistently use either the name/jurisdiction at the time of the event or the modern name/jurisdiction, and stick with that decision. Use footnotes to explain the other versions.

Relationships

Sometimes, relationship terms are used in unexpected ways. Proximity implies a relationship but can also be misleading. In the American colonies, parents often sent their eight- or nine-year-old children to a friend’s household to raise to avoid spoiling them or to give them a trade or education.

Solution: Always explain relationships that are not what they appear. If there has been a controversy, or if the lineage is in doubt, formally list and analyze all the possibilities, and explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Remember to explain conflicting evidence as thoroughly as possible.

Sources

Always question the independence of sources. Did one source depend on the other for information, or did it come by that information without reference to the other? Was there a motive for the information provider, recorder, record keeper, or genealogist to `fudge’? Was the informant in a position to know, or was this second-hand information?

Solution: An important part of genealogical research is the gathering, collation, correlation, interpretation, and analysis of all available and to reach reasonable conclusions. Always explain and resolve significant conflicts between sources. Write a statement explaining your thinking and share it with other researchers.

References

1. The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 1-2,
2. Thomas W. Jones, “Proved?: Five Ways to Prove Who Your Ancestor Was” (printed handout for a lecture presented to library staff, 23 October 2003, FamilySearch Library, Salt Lake City), 1-2. 
   

GPS 5: Write a Soundly Written Conclusion Based on the Strongest Evidence

Why Are Written Conclusions Important?

After conducting reasonably exhaustive research using quality sources that are consistently cited, analyzing and correlating the evidence, and resolving conflicting evidence, we are ready for the fifth element of the GPS: a soundly written conclusion based on the strongest evidence.

Good genealogical writing will always end with a strong written conclusion. This conclusion will assert the facts deduced from the evidence presented. The conclusion is the culmination of our research. Applying the fifth part of the GPS is the only way to ensure our careful work is not lost. We write our conclusions carefully to show that we have not based them on “bias, preconception, or inadequate appreciation of the evidence. [We] also show or explain how the evidence leads to the conclusion.”⁵ 

Writing Standards

Good genealogists have excellent writing skills. They know how to clearly and convincingly report the results of their research, they have the analytical skills and writing ability to make complex arguments, and they use correct grammar and punctuation so as not to distract from their argument. A good conclusion is direct and devoid of superfluous information. 

Genealogists should strive for accuracy, clarity, and readability.⁶ Accuracy means we don’t make up information, exaggerate, or hide information. Clarity means we don’t use clichés, if we directly quote someone, we identify them in the text, and if we introduce a new person to the text, we identify them immediately. Readability means we follow the rules for writing and proofread our work. 

You will learn more about genealogical writing in future courses, but it is important to understand the writing tools that genealogists use.

Genealogical Writing Tools

• The Chicago Manual of Style is more than just a guide to citation. It also provides direction on style, grammar, and punctuation.
• Evidence Explained is more than just a citation guide. It also addresses fundamentals of analysis and citation. You can learn more about Evidence Explained at the Evidence Explained website. 
  
• Professional Genealogy includes chapters on writing research reports, genealogy columns, proof arguments, reviews, compilations, family histories, and lineage papers. The authors of these chapters give detailed explanations of how to write these types of genealogical documents. 
• Portions of Professional Genealogy are available to you as a Pathway student. Access these portions by going to Gale Genealogy Connect and entering Professional Genealogy in the search bar.
  

• Other resources may be available to guide you on professional writing in your country.

Reading Genealogical Journals 

Reading genealogical journals is important for learning how to write like a professional genealogist. Reading quality genealogical articles will help you become a better writer.  The more you read, the more comfortable you will be with the terminology and phrases used by professional genealogists. Good genealogical writers are familiar with professional genealogical publications, and they subscribe to at least one.You will find well-written articles in many publications. Some are listed below. You may wish to discover genealogical journals available in your part of the world.

• United States: National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ)
• United States: The American Genealogist (TAG)
• United States: New England Historical and Genealogical Register (The Register)

Genealogical journals can be challenging to read. They take time and focus. You cannot skim them and fully comprehend the arguments or the evidence presented. You will usually need to read the entire article, or part of the article, twice.

Example

Now that you know the difference between a strong conclusion that demonstrates good writing principles and a weak conclusion that may include common mistakes, read this good conclusion written by Thomas Jones.⁷ 

Along with scarce historical records, DNA testing helped identify Nathaniel Greenfield’s children and parents. The only sources naming him—the 1830 federal census, an army enlistment record, and a court-martial file—identify no one related to him. Nevertheless, documentary and DNA evidence indicate that Nathaniel’s children were Calista Jane (Greenfield) Tucker and Benjamin Franklin “Frank” Greenfield and that Nathaniel’s parents were Thomas and Mary (Walters) Greenfield.

Notice how Jones neatly summarized the evidence that led him to the fact that Nathaniel’s children were Calista Jane (Greenfield) Tucker and Benjamin Franklin “Frank” Greenfield and that Nathaniel’s parents were Thomas and Mary (Walters) Greenfield. His writing is concise and direct. He avoided drama, exaggeration, and clichés.

Example

Compare the conclusion written by Thomas Jones with the conclusion below. What suggestions do you have for the writer to strengthen his or her conclusion?

Along with scarce historical records, DNA testing helped identify Nathaniel Greenfield’s children and parents. DNA is difficult to analyze but is helpful in drawing conclusions. We know that the only sources naming him—the 1830 federal census, which is a head of household census; an army enlistment record, which was very informative; and a court-martial file—identify no one related to him, not even a wife or a child. The presence of the court-martial file should not alert the reader; a soldier may be court-martialed for minor offenses. Nevertheless, really strong documentary and DNA evidence indicate that Nathaniel’s children were Calista Jane (Greenfield) Tucker and Benjamin Franklin “Frank” Greenfield and that Nathaniel’s parents were Thomas and Mary (Walters) Greenfield.

Did you identify the inclusion of unnecessary information that distracts from the main argument?

Optional Reading

For a better understanding of accuracy, clarity, and readability, you may wish to read Good Genealogical Writing.

You may wish to read this article from National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Resolving a Modern Genealogical Problem: What was Rainey Nelson's Birth Name? by LaBrenda Garrett-Nelson, to practice reading an article from a professional journal. As you read, consider that professional genealogists might read an article, or sections of an article, multiple times to fully comprehend it. Also notice how the author resolves the problem and think about the principles of writing you have studied.

1. Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Ancestry.com, 2019), 1-2.

2. Merriam Webster.com, s.v. “analysis,” accessed 24 September 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analysis.

3. Merriam Webster.com, s.v. “correlation,” accessed 24 September 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correlation.

4. This metaphor was originally used by Thomas Jones. See Thomas Jones, “Skillbuilding: The Genealogical Proof Standard: How Simple Can It Be?,” OnBoard 16 (September 2010), https://bcgcertification.org/skillbuilding-the-genealogical-proof-standard-how-simple-can-it-be/.

5. Board for the Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards, 2nd ed., (Nashville, TN: Ancestry.com, 2019), 3.  

6. Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG, FNGS, FUGA, “Good Genealogical Writing,” OnBoard 4 (May 1998): 16 cited in “Skillbuilding: Good Genealogical Writing,” (bcgertification.org : accessed 16 March 2023).

7. Thomas W. Jones, “Too Few Sources to Solve a Family Mystery?: Some Greenfields in Central and Western New York,” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 103 (June 2015): 105-113. This article may be viewed in its entirety online at https://www.ngsgenealogy.org/wp-content/uploads/Complimentary-NGS-Quarterly-Articles/Jones_Jun2015.pdf.