Guest Post

Janice Heppenstall is a graduate of our Advanced Certificate programme (with Distinction). She has a passion for finding the extraordinary in ‘ordinary’ people’s lives, using their stories as a springboard to explore the local, social and political context in which they lived. She blogs regularly on family history and genealogy topics at English Ancestors and is also to be found on Facebook.

This is the third of three posts looking at different types of documentation and other sources that we draw upon to evidence our research. The first two parts looked at primary and secondary sources, original and derivative records, digital surrogates, and some grey areas that appear to be originals but are in fact derivatives: contemporary copies. We now move on to modern derivatives: transcriptions and online indexes.

Transcriptions

Strictly speaking, a transcript is a word-for-word copy of the document, exactly as it appears on the original. However, modern day ‘transcriptions’ prepared for online genealogy research generally do not conform to this definition. Transcribers input information into predetermined fields for forename, surname, date, and so on. Any information falling outside these predetermined fields is simply omitted. This could mean important information or visual clues are missing. In any case, transcriptions vary in quality and accuracy. Sometimes the handwriting is difficult to read, particularly for someone not experienced in reading old handwriting styles. Consequently, the transcript may not record accurately the name, date or other information.

In the last post we looked at the baptism in August 1819 of James Sword Mann, the first child of Thomas and Lucy Mann. We saw that in the original parish record the clerk had mistakenly recorded the mother’s name as ‘Sophia’. Although this was eventually corrected in the parish record it was not corrected on the Bishop’s Transcript. Let’s look now at modern transcriptions of the event as recorded in both these records: the parish register and the Bishop’s Transcript.

Here is the transcript of the original record in the parish register:

And here, the modern transcript of the Bishop’s Transcript:

• In both these transcripts the child is named as James Mann, thereby omitting the middle name Sword. Sword is in fact the mother’s maiden name – a valuable clue for researchers.
• Both transcripts record the mother’s name as Sophia. This is of course correct in the case of the Bishop’s Transcript – it is a faithful copy of what was written. However, it is clear that on the parish record the transcriber has simply scanned the record looking for the facts required for the predetermined fields, and in doing so has not read the important amendment. Here, an entry of ‘Sophia amended to Lucy’ would be more accurate/useful.
• In the transcription of the Bishop’s Transcript, ‘Tho[ma]s’ is transcribed as ‘Ether’.
• On both transcripts the date of birth is omitted – the loss of a useful piece of information.
• While for the transcription of the Bishop’s Transcript the actual parish of ‘Norwich, St Martin at Oak’ is given, the parish register transcript records only ‘Norwich, Norfolk, England’. While technically true, in 1819 there were 36 parishes in Norwich, and the inclusion of parish is an important part of the record.

 

What we see here is that the further we have moved away from the original record, the more errors and/or omissions have crept in. That said, we should not discount transcripts. A transcript is far better than nothing; and although we will come across many mistakes like those just described, others are of extremely high quality, particularly those made by local Family History Societies and those made in years gone by, by local antiquarians. In cases where parish registers have been lost, their ‘reconstruction’, often done as a labour of love, using Bishops’ Transcripts and whatever other records are available are a wonderful resource. I have also used transcribed listings of parish register entries, arranged in alphabetical order, as a checklist, just to make sure I haven’t missed anyone. Wherever possible, though, transcripts are best used as a pointer to the existence of the actual record, guiding us to the original where we can see for ourselves what was written.

Indexes

Online resources for genealogy bring a double bonus. Not only can we research from the comfort of our own homes, but also the individual records have been indexed. This means we can achieve in an afternoon what might previously have taken years of sifting through decades of un-indexed data stored on microfiche at the local County Records Office. Whether we’re using commercial genealogy sources such as Ancestry.co.uk or FindMyPast, or free-to-use sites such as FamilySearch and FreeBMD, we just type in a few key search terms and are rewarded with a selection of possible records, probably including digital surrogates of the originals.

The indexes themselves, however, are a derivative record, created pretty much as described above, by third parties, whose work may be of variable quality and accuracy, typing key facts into the predetermined index fields. As such they can and do include errors. My great grandfather, born in Leeds, is indexed on FindMyPast for the 1911 census with a birthplace of ‘Scotland’. I have also found a very clearly written ‘Alfred’ listed on the index as ‘George’, and indeed an entire collection indexed under Northamptonshire rather than Norfolk. Sometimes archaic spelling on very old original documents makes index searches even more ‘hit-and-miss’.

Pulling it all together: combining different source types for best effect

In this 3-part overview we’ve identified some good practice guidance for working with different source types:

• Always get as close as possible to the original source for facts about your ancestors.
• Use secondary sources to add context and depth, and to develop your understanding of the times they lived in.
• Be aware of the nature of the record you’re looking at, and record that along with the information from the record.

 

We will now add one more point:

• Have several alternatives in your ‘arsenal’: Familiarise yourself with, and be prepared to use different source types together whenever necessary to reinforce, cross-reference and compare.

 

Here’s a final example from my own research to illustrate this:

An index search on several sites for a marriage for my 7x great grandfather John Lucas returned only one record: an abstract of Boyd’s marriage index 1538-1850 on FindMyPast. Information provided was simply: ‘Jones Lucas and Elizabeth Marshall; 1670, Rothwell’

I suspected ‘Jones’ was a poor transcription, and although my John Lucas lived in Leeds, not Rothwell, this transcription intrigued me. I knew that digital images of the original parish registers of Rothwell, Holy Trinity, were available on commercial website Ancestry.co.uk and having located them, I used the information on the transcript to search 1670 for the appropriate entry so I could see the exact record for myself. The image below was what I found.

A digital surrogate is usually the closest we can get to using the original record.  However, this is not a good image.  The text is obscured by the rolled-back previous pages.  I could guess at some of the missing words, but others were simply not legible.  My solution was to turn to an early twentieth century transcription of the register by local antiquarian George Denison Lumb.  My thinking here was that, working in 1906, Lumb would have had access to the original document; and he would have been able to separate out the pages lost here in the fold.  My hunch was correct.  His transcription agreed with what I could see and enhanced my own:

“[Jo]h[ann]es Lucas de [Le]eds et Eliz[a]betha [M]arshall de [R]othwell marit Vicesimo’ “

The point is that if we are flexible we will find ways to use whatever is available to best effect.  The more sources at our fingertips, the more effectively we will do this – even if it means on occasion a transcription is preferable to a digital photograph of the original record!

What I hope these three blogposts have illustrated is that although there is a hierarchy in terms of all these different types of source, there is value in all.  Wherever possible we should aim to use the original or a digital surrogate with photographed images of the original.  Secondary sources add context and help us to develop our knowledge and understanding but can also point us to new original sources we didn’t know about.  Online transcripts may show up in a search where the original record doesn’t – a problem with the indexing, perhaps – but if we know where digital surrogates of the originals are available we can use the transcript as a signpost to guide us to the correct entry in the original register.  When archaic handwriting is difficult, Bishop’s Transcripts might offer a slightly easier hand for us to read, and indeed a modern transcript may help us to ‘see’ the letters.  Finally, if a parish has lost its entire collection of registers, we can thank our lucky stars for the hard work of people who, as a labour of love, have tried to reconstruct them.

Source

George Denison Lumb: The Registers of the parish church of Rothwell Co. York, Part I 1538-1689 (1906) Privately printed for the Yorkshire Parish Register Society
Transcription of marriage record of John Lucas and Elizabeth Marshall at p.284
Accessed 5 May 2022 via Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/registersofparis27roth/page/n5/mode/2up

Guest Post

Janice Heppenstall is a graduate of our Advanced Certificate programme (with Distinction). She has a passion for finding the extraordinary in ‘ordinary’ people’s lives, using their stories as a springboard to explore the local, social and political context in which they lived. She blogs regularly on family history and genealogy topics at English Ancestors and is also to be found on Facebook.

 

This is the second of three posts looking at different types of documentation and other sources that we, as genealogists, draw upon to evidence our research. These posts focus not on distinct record sets like censuses, birth registers or manorial records; rather they provide a broader look to get us thinking about the relative value of ‘evidence’ from different source types.

In the first of these posts we focused on primary sources, which we often refer to as ‘original records’, and secondary sources. We looked at how we can use them together to build a fuller picture of our ancestors’ lives and experiences. In this second part we’re starting to look at derivative records.

Derivative records are created after the event but based directly on an original record. In other words, information is copied from the original to another document. As such, there is scope for error in their creation, based on illegibility of the original text, carelessness, or other errors and omissions. There are several types of derivative records. In this post we’ll start with some grey areas: certain record types that are contemporaneous to and certainly look like originals but strictly speaking are not.

Censuses, 1841-1901
In the first post we differentiated between the 1911 and 1921 censuses and all those that went before. Why are these ‘original’ records, yet the earlier ones are not? When we find the 1911 or 1921 census return for our person of interest, we see a single sheet completed by (or on behalf of) the head of household and relating to the members and housing conditions of that household. This is an original record and primary source. By contrast, for the earlier censuses what we see is a long list of all residents in a specific locality, arranged by household and organised according to the route the enumerator took as he walked from house to house, collecting the information. You might have explained this difference with reference to illiteracy rates: that since a great many people were unable to read and write, the enumerator simply arrived on the doorstep and wrote down the information he was given; but this is not true. Individual records were created for each property, and this was then transcribed onto the lists we see today. The original household sheets were then destroyed. In other words, all we have left for these earlier censuses is the contemporaneous derivative record. This might explain some inconsistencies. The second child of my great grandparents is referred to in the 1881 census as Jane (female). He was actually John, a boy. Another great grandfather, George, appears as ‘Enoch’ in the 1891 census. Was this a mis-transcription, or did George object to nosy-parkers coming to ask him questions? (I have spent a lot of time playing hide-and-seek with George, and I suspect the latter…)

Civil Birth, Marriage and Death certificates (Civil BMDs)
Are they original records? You would think so, but they are not necessarily so. Imagine yourself registering a death in 1851. You would go to the local Register Office. They would record all the information, give you a copy, keep the original for themselves and send a third copy to the General Register Office (GRO) in London. Of course, there were no photocopiers: the only way to do this was to write it out by hand several times. In other words, when we buy Civil BMDs online from the GRO, what we receive is a facsimile of a hand-written copy of the original record, i.e. a true copy of a derivative record, and not the original itself. You can choose instead to buy your BMDs from the local Register Office. However, some don’t offer this service, while others don’t have the capacity for creating facsimiles of the originals, in which case what we receive is a modern handwritten or typed copy of the original – again, a derivative record. Might this explain an odd discrepancy you’ve come across?

Bishop’s Transcripts (BTs)
BT’s are an interesting grey area. They are the copies of parish registers that, from 1598 until around 1800, church ministers were required to keep and send annually to the diocese office. They are contemporaneous with the originals, and written by a churchwarden who may have known the individuals involved. Even if a parish’s records from this period have not survived, there is the chance that the BTs have, since they will have been lodged with the diocesan records, quite separately from the parish, and possibly in different archives. As copies, strictly speaking they are derivative records and may contain transcription errors. However, sometimes they contain more information than the originals, and are often invaluable in providing a second chance in deciphering 17th or 18th century handwriting.

Let me give you an example from my own research:
The first image below is the 1819 Bishop’s Transcript of the baptism of my 3x great grandfather’s first child. When I found it I was in no doubt that this was the correct Thomas Mann and son James Sword Mann. However, since my 3x great grandmother’s name is Lucy, and the mother’s name here is Sophia, my assumption was that Thomas must have married twice, his first wife, Sophia, having died not long after James’s birth.

Some years later another I found the parish register record for the same baptism, below. It contained all the same information: James Sword, son of Tho[ma]s and Sophia Mann. Clearly, the BT had been absolutely correctly copied from this original record. However, here, the clerk has added a note to the effect that he has realised the mother’s name of ‘Sophia’ should be ‘Lucy’. The note was dated seventeen years later, 14 August 1836.

In this example, the BT is a faithful copy, but whereas a correction has been made to the original, the BT has been left with the incorrect information. Only by using the one original parish register entry do we see this additional important information.

What all these types of sources have in common is that they are contemporary copies. You may come across other examples, such as the copying of information from chapel of ease records to the main parish register, or post-Interregnum transcriptions made by the parish clerk, based on notes received from the interim civil parish clerks. They are contemporary, and undoubtedly they have value. In some cases they are all we have. But they are copies nevertheless, and as such there is the possibility of error or omission. The important point to take away from all this is that we should be aware of the nature of the record we’re looking at, and we should record that along with the information from the record.

In the final part of this look at different source types we’ll focus on more modern derivatives: transcriptions and indexes; and we’ll meet up again with James Sword Mann and his parents.

 

Guest Post

Janice Heppenstall is a graduate of our Advanced Certificate programme (with Distinction). She has a passion for finding the extraordinary in ‘ordinary’ people’s lives, using their stories as a springboard to explore the local, social and political context in which they lived. She blogs regularly on family history and genealogy topics at English Ancestors and is also to be found on Facebook.

 

This is the first of three posts looking at different types of documentation and other sources that we, as genealogists, draw upon to evidence our research. These posts focus not on distinct record sets like censuses, birth registers or manorial records; rather they provide a broader look to get us thinking about the relative value of ‘evidence’ from different source types. In this first part, we’re looking at some important terms used to distinguish source types: primary, secondary, original and digital surrogate. The second and third posts will build on this, looking at a range of what are termed derivative sources. Although our starting point is that some types of evidence carry more weight than others, as we shall see, none should be disregarded because there is value in all. It all depends on how we use them.

Primary sources are created at the time of an event, or not long afterwards. These include what we, as genealogists, tend to refer to as original records. They include the documents from official bodies and government offices that are the nuts and bolts of our research, such as civil birth, marriage and death certificates; records of baptisms, marriages, burials; wills; property documents, e.g. deeds; apprenticeship records; Court records; newspaper reports; and the 1911 and 1921 census (we’ll consider the earlier censuses in the second post). These types of original documents provide us with the hard facts that enable us to build our trees. They can include far more information than the mere fact of a particular event having occurred. A baptism record, for example, essentially has the date and location of the event, the child’s name and the name of one or both parents. Depending on the year and the parish, it may also include place of residence, father’s occupation, both parents’ fathers’ names and the child’s actual date of birth. Some even include the day of the week on which the birth occurred! It will of course include the denomination, and there may be other notes in the margin. That’s a lot of evidence! The important point here is that we are looking at the original document with our own eyes, and we see for ourselves what was written. We can examine it closely, decipher the handwriting, verify that this is the correct document for our research and get every last scrap of information from it.

When we refer to ‘original records’, strictly speaking what we mean is the actual original documents lodged in archives like the local Country Records Offices, the National Archives at Kew, National Records of Scotland, National Library of Wales, Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) or other diocesan, university or specialist archives. However, increasing numbers of such documents have been photographed and made available to us online, through various websites. The availability of digital images can mean it is no longer necessary to handle the originals, which are stored away, safely. Indeed, often they are no longer available for the general user, meaning the photographed copies of them are what we must use. Archivists refer to them as digital surrogates. In almost every case they are as good as the original, but just occasionally they are not – we’ll see an example of this in part 3. When we rely on these surrogates, it’s good practice to say so. We can refer to them as ‘digital images of the original documents’ and give the website.

Whether we see the actual original documents or an online photograph of them, we can be reasonably confident that most of the information in these original documents/ primary sources is true. Why only reasonably confident? Because the information recorded is only ever as true or as accurate as the facts provided by the informant. In the 1911 census my great grandmother added six years to her second husband’s age to make the age difference between them less obvious. Another example: the marriage record for my widowed 3x great grandmother has her father’s surname as ‘Moss’, which is actually her first husband’s surname. Sometimes we have to read between the lines, recognise human error, make allowances for individual foibles, and on occasion perhaps witness a web of deceit unfolding before our eyes.

However, primary sources do not have to be from official bodies. We might also have personal items such as photographs of people and places; letters; memoirs; diaries; and spoken accounts by people who witnessed an event. In the case of photographs, sometimes simply seeing the image can be sufficient for our information needs: ‘Oh look, that’s Auntie Ethel at Grandma’s Ruby Wedding party, so she must have emigrated after 1977…’ However, often it’s what’s written on the back that adds vital information. The name of a studio on the back can help narrow down the date of the image, or there may even be a date stamp. Alternatively, someone may have written a note on the back. On the back of a group photo taken at the start of my Dad’s National Service training he has written his Platoon, Company and Regiment, along with the full address of the barracks, the date, and a signed dedication to his parents. But beware! Notes may have been added later by someone whose knowledge of the photo is based on hearsay. My Mum incorrectly labelled a photo as her ‘Uncle David’. Meanwhile, her cousin had incorrectly labelled a different photograph of the same man as ‘Uncle Albert’. It took a collaboration between the two daughters of these cousins – myself and my second cousin – to compare what we had and work out that these were in fact two precious photos of ‘Uncle Joe’, who had been killed in action in 1917, before his nieces, our mothers, were even born. This opportunity to exchange stories and photos is one of the things I love about finding new cousins via online trees. Another more distant cousin sent me a memoir written by his late aunt. It included information about family relations and tensions relating to my great grandfather and his birth family – information I simply never would have found any other way. Again, beware, though! A diary entry and a memoir is the writer’s ‘truth’, which on occasion may differ from the reality.

Moving on to secondary sources, these tend to be published works in which the author describes, summarises, discusses or in some way draws upon information gathered from other sources (primary or other secondary). A secondary source may be produced many years after an event. The author may have had no physical connection whatsoever with the original event; and yet with the benefit of distance, hindsight and objectivity, the author can present an overview that adds context to our own research, helping us imagine our ancestors in their setting. Examples might include historians’ texts based on research about a person, locality, event or period of interest; literature contemporaneous to the time/ events; and modern historical novels or films based on sound research. Unless you are actually reading a book about your ancestor, such texts are unlikely to refer specifically to your family, but they can provide a fantastic backdrop to your research. While reading recently about trench warfare and the Western Front, I decided to watch a couple of films about the First World War to help me visualise what I had read: All Quiet on the Western Front (2022) and War Horse (2011). The depiction in both films of ‘No Man’s Land’, the area between the opposing trenches helped me to imagine the utter horror of ‘going over the top’, even down to the placement of coils of barbed wire laid by the troops to make an attack more difficult for the opposing side. Joey the ‘War Horse’ is seriously injured when he becomes entangled in one of these coils. In this example, my reading and the films were secondary sources, but both helped me to understand the conditions and horrific reality of life and death in the trenches for my own kinsmen. They enhance what we find in primary sources. Sometimes secondary sources include great photos and maps, or direct quotes from primary sources, guiding us to them so we can examine them for ourselves. Reading about the 3rd Battle of Ypres, where my aforementioned great uncle Joe was killed, I learned of diaries kept by his commanding officer and was able to locate these and read this factual account (primary source) of Joe’s final weeks, days and hours – even though he wasn’t mentioned by name. Other published works may be memoirs written by people who were there. Strictly speaking these are primary sources, but we can use them in the same way we use secondary texts, to help us understand the context and reality for our family.

To summarise, then, primary sources are the original records made at the time of an event. They provide us with the essential data for our research. We simply could not progress without this information. The historian’s and genealogist’s mantra is always to get as close as possible to the original source. Today, often this means using online digital surrogates – photographs of these originals. However, although these records can help to pad out what we know about our ancestor – their occupation, maybe a physical description, evidence of regular drunk and disorderly behaviour, perhaps, and so on, they do not in themselves provide depth and context. What was life like on a prison hulk? Why were so many people in the north attracted to Nonconformity in the eighteenth century? What were the stages towards universal suffrage, and what can I deduce from the fact of my ancestor’s right to vote in a specific period of history? For these and many more questions and themes our research can benefit enormously from secondary sources.

In the second part we will move on to derivative records, starting with certain types of records that appear to be originals but in reality are copies.

Family Tree magazine is offering readers a free digital issue of the magazine through to the end of the month, when you sign up to their newsletter.

This is part of a new drive to promote the hobby and get more people researching their family history.

Simply sign up to the email at: www.family-tree.co.uk/account/register

Once you sign up you will immediately receive access to the full April 2022 issue, as a digital ‘page-turner’ edition.

Editor Helen Tovey said: “We want everyone to sample our wonderful magazine and this seemed like a great way to get people involved and for them to find out more about family history. We’re so proud of our monthly mag, it’s been going since 1984 and is packed with information and inspiration, and we also love putting together our weekly newsletter. Family history is all about sharing and so we’d thought we’d give something back!”

Highlights of the April issue include:

• Determining the origin of surnames
• How your ancestors’ birth dates can hold the key to the past
• How to use kirk session records
• The lives and working conditions of tailors, dressmakers & seamstresses

This excellent article was written by former Pharos student Dr Sophie Kay. She has kindly allowed us to reproduce it here. Sophie is a professional genealogist at Khronicle. You can find Sophie’s blog here: The Parchment Rustler and follow her on Twitter: @ScientistSoph.

Today, we’re going to talk about the elephant in every genealogist’s research room. It’s one we’ve all spent some time with, whether we realise it or not. And what’s more, this particular elephant tends to divert our research when it shouldn’t. At its worst, it can stampede us right off course.

Have you guessed the elephant’s name yet…?

Yes, bias. Bias comes in many forms, but I’m going to focus on cognitive bias here. This occurs when our internal judgments impede rational thought and affect our decision making when we’re interpreting information. So when does this happen and how can we combat it?

OUR RESEARCH PROCESS

Most of the time, there is more than one route through a genealogy problem. Each researcher will tackle things in their own way, with a variety of creative approaches often possible. 

Whatever the route, the fundamentals of the process involve us examining multiple sources. For each of these, we identify what information that document has given us, and assess how much we can trust it. 

With a multitude of documents in our work, how do we decide which evidence to trust the most? 
Image credit: Militia return by Liz West, CC-BY 2.0; Birth certificate for Albert Cook by Jez Levy, CC-BY 2.0.

So every time you look at a document, you’re making a value judgment about its usefulness to determine how it affects the emerging story. These judgments are key to pushing our research forward: they’re a natural part of what we do. Usually, there is no “perfect” way to navigate our decisions either…and sometimes our forebears find ways to surprise us (NOTE: For more about proof, I highly recommend Phil Isherwood’s article).

But what happens when we make errors of judgment? Perhaps we trust one source more than we should; perhaps we unfairly reject another because we think it doesn’t fit the picture we have in mind. This is where cognitive bias comes into play.

Cognitive bias takes many forms, but I’m going to focus on two sorts here: confirmation bias, and anchoring. Let’s take a look now at what these are and what they might mean for our genealogy research. 

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Confirmation bias arises when our firm beliefs about a person or situation cause us to dismiss evidence which conflicts with those beliefs. This prevents us from making an objective assessment of the evidence. Instead, confirmation bias causes us to seek out information that reinforces our existing beliefs.

Baptism record for Francis Burdett Nuttall, 18 Sept 1861 (indicated by the red arrow).
Source: Ancestry – Manchester, England, Non-Conformist Births and Baptisms, 1758-1912.

Take a look at the baptism record above and imagine that you really wanted to discover high-born ancestry, despite having any evidence to suggest this. If you found Francis Burdett Nuttall in your family tree, you might jump at the prospect of him being related to – or even descended from – the line of Burdett baronets. Looking at this through the lens of confirmation bias, you might conclude that the similarity of name was “proof” of a blood connection, rather than exploring other possibilities – such as the parents naming their son after a public figure they had admired.

Confirmation bias can be a particularly potent distraction in genealogy research. To research the lives of our ancestors, we step from the known into the unknown: throughout this process, we have to generate our own theories which govern what to look for next. We all need ideas to follow up, but we need to be careful that we’re motivated by the evidence in front of us, rather than wanting a particular outcome.

ANCHORING

Anchoring bias occurs when you give greater weighting to the first pieces of information gleaned in your research, whether or not they are of good quality. If we happen upon a misleading piece of information early on, it could easily steer us off course.

For example, think about research using newspapers, where the details included may not always be accurate. If a news article is your first source of a particular “fact”, it has considerable power to lead you astray. Take, for instance, the following news article and imagine that we came to this early in our research, knowing John Walton’s name but little else:

Liverpool Mercury, 17 February 1865, page 8. Birkenhead Police Court summary.
Source: British Newspaper Archive via FindMyPast.

How might we use this article in our research? We cannot guarantee that it provides a fair representation of the facts. 

Anchoring might occur if you assumed from this that John was precisely 13 at the time of his trial and refused to consider any alternative ages when running your searches. Anchoring bias can make us blind to other possibilities, perhaps cause us to run too-narrow searches or to discount genuine matches that don’t fit with our early evidence.

HOW CAN I BATTLE THESE BIASES IN MY OWN GENEALOGY RESEARCH?

It’s not always a straightforward battle, but the following suggestions may help you break out of the bias bubble:

1. SLOW DOWN AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF COGNITIVE BIAS

This is the absolute first stop on our journey. Each of us, no matter what our level of experience, can fall victim to cognitive bias. By acknowledging this, we are better placed to combat it. Our biases are rarely conscious ones and can be annoyingly difficult to spot. 

If we’re to call out our biases, then slowing down our pace and questioning our own decisions can be of huge benefit. When we’re hurtling through our research, hot on the trail of a new lead (we’ve all been there), it’s easy to fall into quick decision making without weighing all the evidence. Snap decisions often rely more on “gut feeling” and might allow our biases to sneak in unannounced.

Once we’ve realised that bias is a universal experience, there are some routes to spotting it, which we’ll delve into now.

2. TALK TO OTHERS ABOUT YOUR WORK.

Talking about your process, not just your findings, is one of the most important aspects of beating cognitive bias. Bias thrives on our isolation. Genealogy research frequently occurs within our own little bubble and it’s typically the end findings that we discuss with our nearest and dearest, not the methods or reasoning we used to get there.

Researching alone – or even in a pair or small group where you may all get stuck in a thinking rut – can entrench our habits and attitudes and cause us to miss things. Sometimes, a fresh pair of eyes is what’s needed. Think of it as genealogical peer review.

Engaging with others about our genealogy research – our thought processes, as well as the story itself, can help our findings to flourish. Photo by Daniel, CC BY-ND 2.0.

So, whom should you speak to? Your confidant could include a trusted friend or relative who has experience in genealogy. Alternatively, you could join your local family history society to meet others with whom you can discuss your research. If you’re UK-based, you might find the Federation of Family History’s society search facility useful. 

You might also choose to connect with other researchers via online forums and social media. Draw on these valuable community networks and be prepared to reciprocate too: if someone acts as a sounding board for your research, how about you return the favour for them when they need it?

3. WRITE UP YOUR RESEARCH.

When we write up, we draw the separate strands of our research together into a common narrative thread. This is a critical process and requires you to scrutinise your own ideas and methods, and work closely with your notes and sources. This is known as self-reflective practice. 

Transforming your research notes into a written volume, an article or a blogpost is a crucial phase of self-reflection, forcing us to critique our own work. Photo credits: Pencil notes by Robert of Fairfax, CC BY-NC 2.0; bookshelves by Eltpics, CC BY-NC 2.0.

Writing up is a great opportunity to spot any errors you might have made. Think of it as a friendly critique of your younger self! 

Sometimes a project might need time for it to grow to a point where writing up is a viable prospect. Where possible, I’d advise writing up as often as is appropriate, so you can spot any mistakes or missed avenues before you build on your research much further: backtracking then will feel even more painful.

4. EMBRACE EVIDENCE.

An empirical (evidence-based) approach can help you to construct a logical argument for why you think the record you’ve found is the right one for the individual you’re researching. Always ask: what’s the evidence for or against this finding? Does it fit with what I already know, or do I need to rethink some aspects of my existing narrative?

When drawing together multiple sources from several research sessions to make your case, a well-organised system of recording in a research log can assist you in referring to all the relevant documents when you’re drawing your conclusions.

Example of a handwritten research log – I tend to prefer wider spacing than this so it’s easier on the eye. This is only one example of a log: you can develop a version which works for you. Source: FamilySearch Wiki.

If you’re new to research logs, then Cyndi’s List has some great resources for you to explore on the subject. Natalie Pithers of Genealogy Stories has also written a great overview of logs and why you need them on her blog.

5. BEWARE ANCHORING FROM ORAL HISTORIES

Oral histories (evidence drawn from conversations rather than written documents) are typically a first port of call in our genealogical journey. How many of us started our family history journey by talking to our older relatives? Conversations can be a rich source of information about our forebears, but are unlikely to be 100% accurate. The nature of oral histories as a frequent starting point makes them a particular source of anchoring bias.

For instance, I’ve encountered cases where someone was adamant they knew their mother-in-law’s maiden name, but in fact got it completely wrong; cases where a family story about a particular religious affiliation turned out to have no basis in fact; and stories of connections to famous people which weren’t true at all. So as with all our research, BE CRITICAL!

          Oral histories can be an amazing source of information, but also a major source of anchoring bias. Photo credits: Whisper by ElizaC3, CC BY 2.0; Anchor by Phong6698, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Once you’ve recorded the oral history you’ve taken from a relative, try asking yourself: “What does this oral history suggest I should look at?” followed by, “If some of these ideas are inaccurate, what are my alternatives?” This way, you’ll have a Plan B in mind from the start and might be less likely to be derailed by misinformation.

Be especially careful not to assume all information you’re told is accurate. Use it as a guideline to suggest research directions, but don’t assume that it provides the complete picture.

6. CELEBRATE CONTEXT

Ask “what are my blind spots?” and approach genealogy as a perpetual learner. Delve into some background reading about the era and place that you’re researching; understand the provenance of the record sets you work with. Appreciating context in this way will really improve your judgments when navigating the records.

7. PRACTISE, PRACTISE, PRACTISE

The final step in battling our biases is to continue on our research journey with these bias-battling tools in mind. There is no quick, one-stop fix for cognitive bias, but over time you can train yourself to spot when it’s happening. 

It’s a reassuring thought that, whatever level of experience we bring to our genealogy research today, we’re all learning as we go. The more secure you become in your genealogical technique, the better equipped you’ll be to address bias in your own practice – as well as helping friends and acquaintances with theirs!

Try some of the suggestions above and you’ll find that bias-battling gets easier with time. Critiquing our own work can help our research to flourish, gifting us family history stories that we’ll enjoy sharing with our families and descendants for many years to come. 

WHAT’S YOUR ADVICE?

Do you have any favourite bias-battling approaches or advice you’d like to offer to your fellow genealogists? Or perhaps you’d like to share your own experience of being led astray by bias? Post your tips and stories in the comments below and perhaps you’ll help others avoid the pitfalls of the genealogical elephant in the room…!

FURTHER READING

If you enjoyed reading about cognitive bias and what it might mean for your genealogy research, then I’d highly recommend the following articles and resources for further reading.

BOOK: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. This bestselling book comes from one of the original academics to identify and characterise cognitive bias – it’s a great introduction to the major concepts.

BOOK: History in Practice by Ludmilla Jordanova. Chapter 5, on “The Status of Historical Knowledge”, provides a great overview of the reasoning processes that underpin historical research.

ARTICLE: Confirmation Bias and the Power of Disconfirming Evidence by the Farnam Street blog. Their Mental Models page, which provides more information about cognitive biases and how to challenge them, is also worth a look.

ARTICLE: The Cognitive Biases Tricking Your Brain. Ben Yagoda’s article for The Atlantic looks at some of the history of our awareness of cognitive bias and studies on how we might unseat it.

This excellent article was written by Phil Isherwood, and he has kindly allowed us to reproduce it here. Phil is a Pharos Graduate who describes himself as an amateur genealogist. His daily working life includes developing methodologies for business teams, a skill transferable to genealogy research. You can find Phil’s blog here: Seeing the Wood for the Trees and follow him on Twitter: @isherwood_phil 

The end goal of all genealogical investigations is to establish proof, by which we mean a convincing, credible case for a specific ancestral identity, relationship, or life event. By thorough research in sources, we must find sufficient detailed, matching evidence to uncover and reconstruct relationships and events relating to our research target, and only our research target.

But how do we decide when an accumulation of evidence reaches a threshold that we call proof? How do we define it? How do we decide when it has been met? How do we assess what others have proposed as proof? Is there just one valid definition of proof or are there many? These are questions that are central to the pursuit of genealogy.

Pharos Tutor, Janet Few, is author and tutor on the course ‘Are you Sitting Comfortably: Writing and Telling your Family History’. Here she tells us about some of the research that was necessary to turn a family story into a fictionalised account for a forthcoming novel. Janet lives and works in Devon.

I always knew I would write a novel one day, just not this novel. When FindmyPast released some criminal records, I discovered the story of a local couple who were accused of the manslaughter of their adult daughter. Although this only took place in 1918, no hint of the incident had passed down to the present day and I was intrigued.
One hundred years ago, in the euphoria of the armistice, a young woman lay dying in a North Devon fishing village. Her parents were to stand trial for her manslaughter. Barefoot on the Cobbles uncovers the story of the troubled individuals involved and the traumas in their pasts that led to this tragedy. I have tried to recreate life at the dawning of the twentieth century and to root the narrative in its unique and beautiful geographical setting, I used very similar research techniques to those that I suggest in my Pharos course. The court records do not survive, but I was able to find very detailed newspaper accounts and they were the key to unlocking the past. They also helped me with dialogue, as I had access to verbatim witness statements. Of course, my previous history and genealogy books hadn’t required me to be able to write speech. The novel is set in a fishing community, where the weather played a huge part in people’s lives and I tried very hard to reflect actual weather events of the time. Fortunately, monthly weather reports for the period I was writing about are available. Where possible, I even tried to write chapters at the right time of year, so that I knew that I was capturing correctly the twists of the seasons and the wildflowers in the hedgerows.

Being an historian, I was obsessed with getting things right. It was very difficult at first to realise that this was not family history, it was fiction and I could fill in the gaps by making things up. Actually, very little was invented in the end. You would not believe the extended debate that ensued over very minor points, such as whether Clovelly donkeys carried luggage down the hill as well as up. Despite photographic evidence, it seems they did not. It turned out that the photograph that suggested to the contrary was posed for a film!

Avoiding anachronisms is not just about making sure your sixteenth century character is not wearing a wristwatch, or your hero does not put his shopping in a plastic carrier bag in the 1930s; I have read both of these clangers. Using appropriate language was another challenge. I had to be careful not to use phrases or vocabulary that was inconsistent with the early twentieth century. Reading novels and diaries that were written in the period, or earlier, was a great help here.

I call it a ‘why done it’, it is very much about people and why they may have behaved as they did. It is essentially a book about people and what makes them behave in a particular way. The characters and their backgrounds allowed me to explore such issues as anorexia, shell-shock, mental health, alcoholism, the menopause and infant mortality. You will find evidence of my interest in the history of medicine and of my love of the Devon landscape, hidden between the covers of this book.

I spent two years immersed in a landscape that was familiar and an era that was not. The characters became as real to me as my own family and somehow I knew how they would react in certain situations. In the end, the facts and the fiction became intertwined and now I have to remind myself which are the parts of the novel that I invented.
**********************************************************************************
Barefoot on the Cobbles is due out on 17 November, for more information see
http://bit.do/bfotc
Details of Janet’s course Are you Sitting Comfortably: Writing and Telling your Family History here

This post is by Pharos Tutor, Julie Goucher

As humans we all have many things in common and yet we are unique individuals. One thing we have in common is that we each have a surname, in fact there is a chance it is our oldest possession. We were probably born with it, but we might have acquired it though marriage or adoption. Regardless of how we acquired it, we share our surnames with others, some of whom we are related to and others we are not. For some genealogists, that concept is fascinating and so a project of proportion is born, a one-name study or research into a surname.

Over the course of the next five weeks, a group of genealogists will be exploring the wider angle of surname research. We will be understanding the concept of one-name studies and surname research, exploring surnames and their history and using distribution maps which often add an interesting dimension to our studies as well as our family history. Also, we will be exploring core records that we need to build our studies and the process of gathering information.  We will then discover data analysis and making sense of it all and look at the practical aspects of operating a one-name study, covering organising it, software, sharing your study using Facebook Groups and using the unique help of the Guild of One-Name Studies Profile feature as well as having your own website. The Guild offers the opportunity to have a website on the Guild servers, at no cost to those with a registered study. The website is indexed by all the search engines such as Google and Bing and provides a platform for you to share your material with others, find lost cousins, and preserve the material at the same time.

Each week there is a lesson with a series of exercises to undertake, with the answers and comments shared in the student forum, lesson material to read and think about, a video or two to watch. At the end of each lesson is a list of references covered during the lesson and perhaps some hints for recommended reading. Also, each week there is a student chat, this enables conversation, debate, the exchange of information, hints, tips and guidance.

Since the 1^st February on my own blog I have published each day about some of the fascinations of researching a surname, undertaking the Pharos Introduction to One-Name Studies course and getting the best from membership of the Guild of One-Name Studies.

By investing the time to understand the broader concepts of surname research and how that works with, and links to other disciplines, you are laying solid foundations for both your own one-name study and your own family history. At the early stages, it is more than just tree building or name collection, solid foundations involve thinking about what you want your study to achieve over the longer term, thus enabling yourself to build a research plan to meet your study goals and discover the fascinating story of your oldest possession.

Read more about Julie

This is a cross post from the excellent blog by professional genealogist and Pharos Tutor Karen Cummings.  You may have missed the original, so we make no apologies for posting it again.
__________________________________________________________________________

How do you research your family tree?

It’s not a trick question, I would like to know. There are so many adverts these days for the big commercial websites: “just type your name in and see what you will discover” and I am concerned we may be losing knowledge of how to conduct proper genealogical research.
It’s not a question of clicking links on Ancestry (other commercial websites are available) and adding people to your tree, or, even worse, basing research on shaking green leaves or hints. Yes, you can easily create a family tree this way but, and I say this with tongue in cheek, you could end up barking up completely the wrong tree!

There is far more to genealogical research: knowledge and methodology.

To conduct genealogical research effectively you need an understanding of sources. What sources should you investigate for a particular research need? When were they created and why? What is the likelihood that your ancestor will be included? There are many courses available to increase your knowledge of different sources, such as those from the Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies (IHGS), Pharos and the Universities of Strathclyde and Dundee. There are also lots and lots of books available, e.g. the “My Ancestor was…” series from the Society of Genealogists and the “Tracing Your … Ancestors” series from Pen and Sword and many articles in the family history magazines.

Even with an understanding of sources there is still a need for caution with the data available on Ancestry, Find My Past and the like. What sources are actually included in a database? Is the database complete or will more records be added later? What are the most effective search techniques and how do you untangle the results you find?

I saw this posted on a social media group recently:
“Which side do you work from and why? Family Tree Maker or Ancestry?”

Aggh! That had me positively jumping up and down on my soap box! Are we really led to believe that “everything is on Ancestry”? Is that what people think? Good quality research considers what sources are required THEN where they are, not the other way around.

This brings me onto methodology. In the UK we really do not give methodology much air time. Our US cousins are far better at formalising genealogy methodology. In my opinion we really need to think about this more.

Two things happened whilst I was at “WDYTYA Live” in Birmingham recently that left me with completely opposing opinions of “the way things are”. Firstly I went to a talk from American, Robert Charles Anderson, on the methodology he describes in his book Elements of Genealogical Analysis. It describes a systematic methodical approach to analysing your research and coming to sound conclusions. Some of you may be familiar with the Genealogical Proof Standard, more commonly used in the US but, again, a sound methodology to establishing “proof”. That deserves a series of blog post on its own so I won’t go into it further here. I thought Mr Anderson’s approach was excellent but around half the audience got up during the talk and walked out. Was it just the American records bias of the talk or are people really no longer interested in doing things properly?

At the complete opposite end of the scale, a new book had just been published by Pen and Sword from a colleague of mine, John Wintrip, Tracing Your Pre-Victorian Ancestors. The title is deceptive and really does not show it off to the best of the publisher’s abilities. Yes, there is much discussion on the specifics of research in the pre-Victorian period but it is the subtitle that is important: “A Guide to Research Methods for Family Historians“. I understand that it was sold out by the end of day 2, and I certainly did not see any copies for sale on the last day, so maybe we are still taking this seriously after all.

We need more of this in the UK: Sound advice on how to conduct proper, good quality genealogical research.

John starts by considering the skills and knowledge needed for genealogical research and breaks this down into four areas:

knowledge of sources
searching skills
analytical and problem solving skills
external knowledge

There are chapters on sources, distinguishing between original and derivative sources and records, and search techniques, including how to get the best from online databases.

Special consideration is given to names, social status, religion, occupations and migration and how these may affect your research journey but there is much focus on methodology: using archives, evidence and proof and techniques such as family reconstitution.

John’s book describes research techniques as used by the professionals and those who take their family history seriously. It introduces the concept of considering the records you are using in the context of what was happening from a historical perspective at the time. Filled with useful case studies from his own research John teaches you to consider the wider picture. Is it possible that a birth you may be looking for is not where you thought because the father was in the militia at the time and stationed elsewhere?
We do not have a lot of information about genealogy research methodology in the UK.

The only other recent publication that comes to mind is the also excellent Genealogy: Essential Research Methods from Helen Osborn. Taking a slightly different approach to John Wintrip’s book I heartily recommend both volumes to anyone serious about their research.

Please, and I know I have used this word repeatedly, can we do this properly?

---

Find out more about Karen here

This post is by Pharos Tutor, Stuart Raymond, author, teacher and genealogist
I had a very curious experience last year. I asked Pen & Sword if they would be interested in publishing a book on Nonconformist Ancestors. To which the response was, well, why not expand it to include the Church of England as well? To which my response was, the nonconformist sources would be swamped. Well, in that case, why not two books, one on Nonconformity, one on the Church of England. Oh, and throw in another on Roman Catholic records as well. To which I responded, Help!!!
But my publisher was right. There were few up to date books which provided comprehensive coverage of sources relating to the various different denominations. Yes, there are many which cover aspects of those sources, such as my own on Parish Registers, or some of the Society of Genealogists’ My ancestors were … series on specific denominations. But there was little recent work which covered the whole range of sources in detail. So I set to work.
Earlier this year, the first of the trilogy appeared. Tracing Your Nonconformist Ancestors: a guide for family and local historians aims to provide an overview of nonconformist records. It begins with an outline history of nonconformity, which explains the context in which records were created. Those records are held in many different record offices, which are discussed in some detail.  Many records are common to all nonconformist denominations, for example, state and ecclesiastical records of late seventeenth-century persecution, and the registers of baptisms, marriages and burials deposited with the Registrar General in 1841 and 1856 (and now available at www.bmdregisters.co.uk). The structures of the various nonconformist denominations are sometimes very different, and it is important to know that the record keeping activities of Quakers are very centralised, whereas most Baptist or Congregationalist records do not go beyond the local church. The sheer diversity of nonconformist denominations must also be taken into account. The first denomination mentioned in my index is the Apostolic Church, and the last the Wesleyan Reform Union.

Tracing your Church of England Ancestors: a Guide for Family and Local Historians is currently on the point of publications; indeed, attendees at WDYTYA have already had the opportunity to see copies. As one would expect, this includes chapters on parish registers and associated sources of baptisms, marriages and burials, and also on probate records (which were a church responsibility). But it also deals with a wide range of other sources created by the Church of England at both diocesan and parish level. These range from churchwardens’ accounts to midwives’ licences, from incumbents’ visiting books to excommunication record. There is also a chapter on the records of Anglican organizations such as the Church Missionary Society, and the Waifs and Strays Society. I wonder how many genealogists have used the records of charities such as these?
The third book in the trilogy, Tracing your Roman Catholic Ancestors, is not due to appear until early next year. It will of course look at records of Roman Catholic baptisms, marriages and burials, which can be found in both Anglican parish registers, and in Catholic mission registers. But Catholics were subject to severe persecution for over 250 years after 1558, much more so than the nonconformists. So I will be looking in detail at the records of persecution by both state and church. Attention will also be given to the numerous seminaries, monasteries, convents and schools founded by English exiles on the continent during the penal years – and to the many institutions founded in England when the French Revolution forced their return to England. How many of our ancestors attended the Catholic schools they founded?
Now, what was I doing before I started all this? Ah yes, conducting my Pharos courses on apprentices and the seventeenth century.
Stuart A. Raymond
31^st May 2017
Buy Stuart’s books from Genfair:  https://www.genfair.co.uk/search.php
Pen & Sword website: https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/