Recently there have been some interesting discussions among some of the Genealogy blogs I frequent, concerning Evidence-based genealogy and Conclusion-based genealogy, the first being a top-down approach and the other, a bottom-up. Of course, depending on your point of view, you might consider the first bottom-up and the last top-down, the semantics don’t really matter. The distinction between these approaches can be difficult for many of us to grapple with, especially since most of us tend to approach genealogy from both ends.
Evidence-based genealogists (EBGs), like myself, don’t add claims to their database unless there is some evidence to support the claim. Generally this evidence comes in the form of sources. EBGs will add their sources and claims as soon as they become available, all times being relative. This approach will lead to multiple and duplicate claims for individuals even for claims which are considered single-occurrence-events (SOEs), such as a birth date or a death date. Obviously, these claims cannot all be factual, but, since EBGs are not focused on a conclusion model, this is not an obstacle.
Conclusion-based genealogists (CBGs), which make up the bulk, take a different approach. They gather all their sources together over a period of time, and when they feel comfortable with making a conclusion based on the sum of their data, they will enter only those claims for which they have made conclusions, into their database with their supporting sources. Using this approach, the database will usually not contain multiple claims for SOEs.
As I’ve said, I’m an EBG. The reason for this is in the way I use my database. I publish my database online at The Forsythe Saga website. It is my belief that if you are making your data available to a large number of people, you should give them all the tools they need to make their own conclusions. Having been doing online genealogy for over a decade, I have come across thousands of conclusions made online by other genealogists that I’ve subsequently found to be factually incorrect, or they are not documented so that there is no way to verify their conclusions. Unfortunately, without the proper evidence, as a EBG, their unsupported conclusions are worthless to me and must be discarded.
Genealogists who do not publish their data online, again the bulk, are more interested in conclusions. The reason for this is that they usually share their data with other family members who are not so hard-line as me, and are only interested in conclusions. My problem with this approach is that if I discover new information that conflicts with someone else’s data and that someone has already concluded that the claim is not valid, and therefore left it out of their database, I do not know that and must redo all the necessary research to arrive at the conclusion myself, which I don’t mind doing, but I wish I had their reasoning at hand.
Both EBG and CBG models are valid approaches, and most of us intermingle the two. Both types of genealogists are interested in conclusions and will look for conflicting claims in their data, and then often focus their research in those directions (See Bonkers, my new online tool that functions as a GEDCOM sanity checker). They will also both develop proof arguments to resolve conflicts and include these as part of their research.
In this modern era of computers and the Internet, the sharing of genealogical data with strangers becomes more and more prevalent. I encourage anyone who is currently focused on the conclusion model only, to begin thinking about the advantages of an evidence-based approach to entering their genealogy data.
Louis Kessler in his post I Have Evidence About the Future of Behold has suggested a new paradigm for genealogy software that would better support evidence-based data entry by allowing claims to be added directly from a source and then assigned to individuals. His intention is to make this approach available in his Behold application when editing capabilities are added. I commend him for this.
Until that time, a simple set of guidelines can be used for EBG data entry using any genealogy application that allows sources to be added independently of individuals.
1. Enter your source, including all information related to it such as publishing information, repository, and all quotations/citations.
2. Add source categories to your source. . If your genealogy application does not support adding categories to your sources, then you should use the GEDCOM source reference quality settings when adding your claims below.
3. Now that your source is in place, scan through the text of your source and look for any claims it makes. Many people, myself included, will concentrate only on claims pertaining to their particular family or ancestors, nothing wrong with that. Add the claim to the individual or family it applies to and be sure to reference the source and set the source quality if you were not able to categorize your sources. If your application supports adding a page number to the citation, go for it.
4. Repeat step 3 for all claims made by your source that you wish entered in your database.
To better understand the benefit from using this approach, look at the claim tab for any of the sources on my website. The claim tab separates the claims into 5 types: names, genders, associations, events and attributes. The claims will be displayed on the tab in that order. Having all of the source claims available and grouped together like this allows me to easily review my source at anytime to determine if I have captured all of a source’s relevant information.
Other blog posts related to evidence/conclusion based genealogy:
Michael Hait, What is a conclusion?
Russ Worthington When to enter data into your Genealogy Software
Louis Kessler I Have Evidence About the Future of Behold
Michael Hait Simple and complex genealogical conclusions
Tim Forsythe GREnDL 2.0 and Counting
Louis Kessler Evidence and Conclusion Modelling in Behold
Randy Seaver Puzzling Over the Evidence-Conclusion Process
James Tanner Source Citation vs. Proof
Jennifer Zinck Evidence Management
Michael Hait “Evidence-based” and “Conclusion-based” software use