|
This is a chapter from Genealogical Resources in New Mexico,
2002 edition. Also online from that book is the chapter on
Vital Record Information sources in New Mexico.
The Genealogical Proof Standard was established in the genealogical field to guide
serious researchers in writing and assembling a family history that would be "as
close to the truth as possible," and replaces the previously held doctrine of
"preponderance of the evidence," a legal tenet deemed not as appropriate for genealogical
studies. The GPS, a five-step process, involves these components:
- Conducting a reasonably exhaustive search for information
that is or may become pertinent to an identity, relationship, event, or situation
being questioned;
- Collecting and including
a complete and accurate citation to all sources of each and every item of information
used;
- Analyzing and correlating the information
to assess its quality as evidence;
- Resolving conflicts caused by items of
evidence which contradict one another or are contrary to a proposed solution for
the question; and
- Arriving at a soundly reasoned and coherently
written conclusion. (1)
While proof beyond "a shadow of a doubt" is not required in the GPS, genealogists
must recognize that any statement made regarding an ancestor or lineage can never
be the final word. (2) It always remains possible,
in fact, this writer would say it is almost a certainty, that new evidence will
be found one day, forcing the researcher to re-examine and re-evaluate his or her
original statement or statements, and determine if they are still valid or in need
of revision.
In genealogical and family history research, many searches begin based wholly or
in part on a family tradition or story. Traditions concerning relatives and ancestors
who have lived and died in past times may have existed over several generations
and even several hundred years, depending upon the culture and circumstances of
their lives. Before a tradition can be accepted as fact, however, it must be verified.
(3) This writer has found
that generally, traditions hold some grain of truth, but the amount can vary widely.
In the years or centuries of its telling, the "facts" surrounding a tradition may
have expanded greatly or been altered so completely as to bear no resemblance to
the original account. Often, unraveling the mysteries of a family tradition require
an even greater research effort than simply beginning the search with some basic
known or suspected fact about a person or problem. Unfortunately, disproving all
or part of a family tradition may become an unhappy experience for a novice researcher,
as the family may have cherished its tradition as part of who they are. This researcher
has observed reluctance and refusal to give up such traditions in some families,
even when the documentary evidence does not support it, or in some cases, specifically
contradicts it. As the Millses observed in their 1981 critique of Alex Haley's Roots,
"family traditions are surrealistic images of the past, blurred by time, colored
by emotions and imagination."(4)
I strongly recommend that researchers always adhere to the principles of the GPS
in both their research and writing. Whether your research is meant only for your
immediate family's use or for publishing and sharing with a wider audience, any
reader should be able to pick up your work and trace back the steps you took to
arrive at the conclusions you reached. In today's world of genealogical and family
history research, exemplary research and documentation methodology are required
elements we should all strive for in our work.
Karen Stein Daniel, CGSM
|
|
|
1)
|
Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Genealogical Standards
Manual, Millennium Edition (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 1-2.
|
|
2)
|
Ibid.
|
|
3)
|
Johni Cerni, "Family Traditions - There Is No Truth Without Proof,"
Lineages Club News (Fall 1993): 9.
|
|
4)
|
Gary B. Mills and Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Roots and the New 'Faction,'
A Legitimate Tool for Clio?" The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
89 (January 1981): 6.
|
|
|
