In my personal genealogical researches, I have found the separate research log to be as you describe it, Suzanne. However, in my historical project on the people of St. Augustine, Florida, 1784-1821, I have found that keeping individual research logs is a necessity! For one thing, the sheer massiveness of the project, something like a total of over 3,000 people to track in documents scattered to the winds of several locations in Florida, as well as Washington, D.C., and Seville, Spain, cries out for a way to track research already done on each individual. The individual log provides a quick way for me to check on where I have already found data on each individual. It is much easier for me to use the logs, stored in the lower right drawer of my desk in hanging folders, than it is to get up to the two file cabinets of the actual files and thumb through them til I find the individual's file. And this has just become more important with the opportunity now to merge my data with the Colonial Florida Digital History database. Odd, isn't it, that something that in one instance is a royal pain should be so necessary in another application. Karen Packard Rhodes Middleburg, Clay County, Florida On 3/23/2017 3:32 PM, Suzanne Matson wrote: > Thank you!! I found keeping a separate research log time consuming, > repetitive and a real pain. There are those who insist that one must keep a > research log. Stubborn me--I decided it simply didn't work for me. It's so > much easier to analyze and write as I go. > > Suzanne Matson >

Dianne, When the event is near, would you be so kind as to post information on how to access the live streaming? I'd dearly love to see some of the presentations, including Elizabeth's, of course! But I can't make it to the conference this year. Thanks! Karen Packard Rhodes Middleburg, Clay County, Florida On 3/23/2017 3:46 PM, Dianne Holley wrote: > Perhaps her presentation will be included in the NGS Conference Live > Streaming. I've watched the last 2 or 3 years and it's a terrific way to > get to participate when you can't be physically present. > > Dianne Holley > dianne@cmemories.us > Austin, TX

Thanks, Sara, Suzanne, Michele, Jim, and Margie. Hope it helps. Elizabeth -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of M. A. Beldin Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:10 PM To: Transitional-Genealogists-Forum@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Thank you Re: Studying the Research Reports of E. S. Mills Thank you, Ms Mills. As usual a thorough explanation of the question and an excellent lesson for those of us learning. I have copied and will save this explanation to refer to often as I have already done with Professional Genealogy and the Historic Pathways website. In addition, I have purchased your lecture CDs, including the one on Information Overload, and have listened to it over and over. (One reason I have dogs, every morning I walk them and listen to all the wonderful podcasts and lectures available to us digitally.) I might mention how sincerely appreciative I am for those of you who allow your presentations to be recorded so that those of us who cannot attend every conference are able to enjoy the knowledge shared. thanks to Melissa for the question and to all those who also put in their 2 cents worth. All is interesting and valuable to those of us learning to be good genealogists. Margie Beldin Richland, Washington ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Elizabeth, As a not-even-ready-to-transition-yet genealogist, I just wanted to pop in to say thank you for taking the time to explain your process here. This is an area that I need to get a better handle on if I want to make a go of this professionally someday (and frankly work on my own family more efficiently). I am attending the NGS conference (my first!) and I already had your presentation on my list of must-sees. I'm looking forward to it. See you there! Sara Kidd Virginia Beach > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:51:38 -0500 > From: "Elizabeth Shown Mills" <eshown@comcast.net> > To: <TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > Mills > Message-ID: <044101d2a406$80fed8b0$82fc8a10$@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Melissa, > > No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago > decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in > retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of > parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. > Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people > are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier > research in this-or-that item on my log. > > The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the > template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the > mid-to-late 80s, I began the > "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now > use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family > research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. > > Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different > organization, etc., the basic process is this: > > Step 1: > As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the > "background" information--identifying > - the person who is being researched > - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built > - the key associates > - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon > which prior research is built > - any limitations on the project > - sources to be searched (a to-do list) > > Step 2: > Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I > use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I > create > - a full citation to that source; > - comments on any problems I observe with that source; > - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts > here); and > - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or > conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it > might > suggest. > > When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at > it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." > If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to > say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate > further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed > at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment > that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated > from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into > the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a > block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will > clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) > > Step 3: > When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there > onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I > used each source, given that later findings might have altered a > possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with > something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I > need to comment upon in the report. > > Step 4: > When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the > "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points > of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. > > Step 5: > I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any > unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this > new > research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new > plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I > come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end > of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and > plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) > > > After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is > key > to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... > > Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site > also will have seen two distinctively different critters: > (a) research reports; and > (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William > Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) > > A research report is a technical account of one specific block of > research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people > and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found > on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of > research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen > software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational > database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug > them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with > either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is > a > nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific > document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back > then when we didn't know as much as we do now. > > So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I > can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this > person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together > with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the > individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I > finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each > new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in > wherever it belongs in the chronology. > > Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, > "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data > Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one > conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying > syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined > above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough > room for in the 4-page syllabus material. > > Elizabeth > > -------------------------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG > HistoricPathways.com > EvidenceExplained.com > > AUTHOR/EDITOR OF > Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian > Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace > Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, > Lecturers & Librarians > The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color > & other works on research methodology & Southern history > >

Elizabeth, May I share this with the GenProof group I am currently mentoring? We have talked quite a bit about the different approaches people use for organizing their research as they are conducting it. Michele Lewis -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Shown Mills Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:52 PM To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills Melissa, No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier research in this-or-that item on my log. The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the mid-to-late 80s, I began the "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different organization, etc., the basic process is this: Step 1: As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the "background" information--identifying - the person who is being researched - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built - the key associates - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon which prior research is built - any limitations on the project - sources to be searched (a to-do list) Step 2: Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I create - a full citation to that source; - comments on any problems I observe with that source; - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts here); and - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it might suggest. When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) Step 3: When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I used each source, given that later findings might have altered a possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I need to comment upon in the report. Step 4: When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. Step 5: I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this new research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is key to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site also will have seen two distinctively different critters: (a) research reports; and (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) A research report is a technical account of one specific block of research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back then when we didn't know as much as we do now. So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in wherever it belongs in the chronology. Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough room for in the 4-page syllabus material. Elizabeth -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG HistoricPathways.com EvidenceExplained.com AUTHOR/EDITOR OF Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color & other works on research methodology & Southern history -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Finlay Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you!! I found keeping a separate research log time consuming, repetitive and a real pain. There are those who insist that one must keep a research log. Stubborn me--I decided it simply didn't work for me. It's so much easier to analyze and write as I go. Suzanne Matson On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Elizabeth Shown Mills <eshown@comcast.net> wrote: > Melissa, > > No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago > decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in > retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of > parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. > Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people > are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier > research in this-or-that item on my log. > > The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the > template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the > mid-to-late 80s, I began the > "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now > use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family > research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. > > Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different > organization, etc., the basic process is this: > > Step 1: > As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the > "background" information--identifying > - the person who is being researched > - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built > - the key associates > - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon > which prior research is built > - any limitations on the project > - sources to be searched (a to-do list) > > Step 2: > Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I > use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I > create > - a full citation to that source; > - comments on any problems I observe with that source; > - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts > here); and > - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or > conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it > might > suggest. > > When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at > it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." > If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to > say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate > further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed > at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment > that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated > from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into > the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a > block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will > clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) > > Step 3: > When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there > onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I > used each source, given that later findings might have altered a > possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with > something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I > need to comment upon in the report. > > Step 4: > When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the > "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points > of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. > > Step 5: > I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any > unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this > new > research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new > plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I > come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end > of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and > plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) > > > After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is > key > to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... > > Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site > also will have seen two distinctively different critters: > (a) research reports; and > (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William > Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) > > A research report is a technical account of one specific block of > research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people > and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found > on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of > research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen > software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational > database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug > them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with > either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is > a > nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific > document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back > then when we didn't know as much as we do now. > > So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I > can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this > person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together > with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the > individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I > finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each > new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in > wherever it belongs in the chronology. > > Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, > "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data > Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one > conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying > syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined > above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough > room for in the 4-page syllabus material. > > Elizabeth > > -------------------------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG > HistoricPathways.com > EvidenceExplained.com > > AUTHOR/EDITOR OF > Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian > Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace > Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, > Lecturers & Librarians > The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color > & other works on research methodology & Southern history > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Melissa Finlay > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully > studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so > generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, > Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, > and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve > as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of > report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type > of report. > I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the > same > pattern. Thank you for sharing them. > > Melissa Finlay > www.finlayfamily.org > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- *Suzanne C. Matson* *Office: 864-469-6174* *Email: suzannematson42@gmail.com <suzannematson42@gmail.com>* *Website: researchbysuzanne.com <http://researchbysuzanne.com> * *Greenville, South Carolina*

Diane wrote: >Perhaps her presentation will be included in the NGS Conference Live Streaming. I've watched the last 2 or 3 years and it's a terrific way to get to participate when you can't be physically present. Diane, NGS definitely did have a wonderful idea with those live-streaming sessions! Yes, I'll be doing one of the live-streaming sessions-Friday at 11:00, if I recall correctly. However, that one is "What's the Evidence? How to Probe Documents beyond the Obvious." For this, the principles will be illustrated primarily with examples from late-colonial and early-republic records, using a problem-riddled DAR application as the springboard. Elizabeth -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com

Sure, Michele. -----Original Message----- From: Michele Lewis [mailto:ancestoring@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:37 PM To: 'Elizabeth Shown Mills' <eshown@comcast.net>; TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills Elizabeth, May I share this with the GenProof group I am currently mentoring? We have talked quite a bit about the different approaches people use for organizing their research as they are conducting it. Michele Lewis -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Shown Mills Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:52 PM To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills Melissa, No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier research in this-or-that item on my log. The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the mid-to-late 80s, I began the "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different organization, etc., the basic process is this: Step 1: As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the "background" information--identifying - the person who is being researched - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built - the key associates - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon which prior research is built - any limitations on the project - sources to be searched (a to-do list) Step 2: Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I create - a full citation to that source; - comments on any problems I observe with that source; - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts here); and - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it might suggest. When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) Step 3: When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I used each source, given that later findings might have altered a possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I need to comment upon in the report. Step 4: When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. Step 5: I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this new research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is key to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site also will have seen two distinctively different critters: (a) research reports; and (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) A research report is a technical account of one specific block of research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back then when we didn't know as much as we do now. So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in wherever it belongs in the chronology. Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough room for in the 4-page syllabus material. Elizabeth -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG HistoricPathways.com EvidenceExplained.com AUTHOR/EDITOR OF Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color & other works on research methodology & Southern history -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Finlay Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Studying Ms. Mill's reports is a fantastic way to learn quality and professional reporting. In my work, I do incorporate the research log into my reports. Where and how this is placed within the report can vary slightly by genealogist. Those that wish to see an example of one of my reports [that I have permission to share] can feel free to email me privately. Sincerely, Melanie D. Holtz, CG Lo Schiavo Genealogica 7283-102 NC Highway 42 W, #402 Raleigh, NC 27603 919-889-3581 Melanie@holtzresearch.com<mailto:Melanie@holtzresearch.com> www.italyancestry.com<http://www.italyancestry.com> Specializing in Italian Genealogical Research and Dual Citizenship Subscribe to Newsletter<http://www.holtzresearch.com/subscribe-to-newsletter/> ________________________________ From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM <transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Dianne Holley <Dianne@holleyart.com> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:47 PM To: 'Melissa Finlay'; TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills Excellent Question Melissa - I'm looking forward to the response(s)! Dianne Holley dianne@cmemories.us Austin, TX -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Finlay Sent: March 23, 2017 09:40 To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org<http://www.finlayfamily.org> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Perhaps her presentation will be included in the NGS Conference Live Streaming. I've watched the last 2 or 3 years and it's a terrific way to get to participate when you can't be physically present. Dianne Holley dianne@cmemories.us Austin, TX -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of kathygrant@cinci.rr.com Sent: March 23, 2017 14:41 To: Melissa Finlay <melissa@finlayfamily.org>; transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills I agree with Melissa - would love to see this class on a webinar - lots of travel just isn't in my budget right now. ---- Melissa Finlay <melissa@finlayfamily.org> wrote: > Melanie, Jill and Elizabeth, > > Thank you for the additional tips and insights. As I study and practice this type of report writing, I feel like this is THE element that has been missing from my research efforts for 26 years. It truly is the most efficient, cohesive, and easily-referenced way I have ever tried to record my research. I appreciate each of you willingly mentoring those of us who are working our way to the next level in the field. > > Elizabeth, your "Information Overload" class is at the very top of my list of classes I want to take. Unfortunately, I cannot make it to NGS-Raleigh this year. Perhaps at a future conference, or even a webinar event? > > Melissa Finlay > www.finlayfamily.org > > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:16 PM, transitional-genealogists-forum-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > Send TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM mailing list submissions to > > transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > http://lists2.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/transitional-ge > > nealogists-forum > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > transitional-genealogists-forum-request@rootsweb.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > transitional-genealogists-forum-owner@rootsweb.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > (Elizabeth Shown Mills) > > 2. Re: Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > (Dianne Holley) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:51:38 -0500 > > From: "Elizabeth Shown Mills" <eshown@comcast.net> > > To: <TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com> > > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > > Mills > > Message-ID: <044101d2a406$80fed8b0$82fc8a10$@comcast.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Melissa, > > > > No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I > > long ago decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even > > misleading to me in retrospect-because each research effort is based > > on a certain set of parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. > > Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new > > people are continually being added who would not have been covered > > by earlier research in this-or-that item on my log. > > > > The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows > > the template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in > > the mid-to-late 80s, I began the > > "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that > > many now use. I follow this practice not just for client work but > > for my own family research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. > > > > Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a > > different organization, etc., the basic process is this: > > > > Step 1: > > As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the > > "background" information--identifying > > - the person who is being researched > > - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built > > - the key associates > > - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' > > upon which prior research is built > > - any limitations on the project > > - sources to be searched (a to-do list) > > > > Step 2: > > Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section > > and, as I use each item on my source list, I start a "research > > note," in which I create > > - a full citation to that source; > > - comments on any problems I observe with that source; > > - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or > > transcripts here); and > > - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits > > or conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional > > work it might suggest. > > > > When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list > > and at it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." > > If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note > > there to say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to > > investigate further in that source, I'll add whatever note or > > comment or details needed at the point I come back to this. (And, of > > course, any analytical comment that is attached to an abstract or a > > transcript, must be clearly separated from the abstract or the > > transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into the actual details > > from the document. I typically add my comments in a block indent, > > headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will clearly > > know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) > > > > Step 3: > > When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right > > there onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at > > the moment I used each source, given that later findings might have > > altered a possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will > > link with something found earlier, to create new insight and new > > possibilities that I need to comment upon in the report. > > > > Step 4: > > When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below > > the "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the > > high points of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. > > > > Step 5: > > I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. > > Any unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved > > to this new research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new > > plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I > > come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from > > the end of the last report, open up a new report for the new block > > of research, and plug in the plan that I created at the end of the > > last report.) > > > > > > After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person > > who is key to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... > > > > Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my > > HistoricPathways site also will have seen two distinctively different critters: > > (a) research reports; and > > (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: > > William Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) > > > > A research report is a technical account of one specific block of > > research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key > > people and key associates, we also need a summary of all information > > we have found on that person to-date-incorporating all the the > > different blocks of research we have done. The standard "biography" > > that is created by gen software does not fill this need. In the > > creation of those relational database biographies, we extract a > > "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug them together into > > designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with either the > > software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a > > nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a > > specific document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back then when we didn't know as much as we do now. > > > > So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by > > which I can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated > > for this person--exactly what the record says--in chronological > > sequence, together with my clearly separate analyses of each > > finding. That's what the individual "research notes summaries" do > > for me. Consequently, when I finish a report on a block of > > research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each new finding to my > > "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in wherever it belongs in the chronology. > > > > Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this > > topic, "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, > > Research, Data Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice > > before at one conference or another, so it won't be new to some of > > you. The accompanying syllabus material goes into a lot more detail > > about the process I outlined above--and the session itself details > > processes that there wasn't enough room for in the 4-page syllabus material. > > > > Elizabeth > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG HistoricPathways.com > > EvidenceExplained.com > > > > AUTHOR/EDITOR OF > > Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian Evidence > > Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace > > Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, > > Lecturers & Librarians The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of > > Color & other works on research methodology & Southern history > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > Behalf Of Melissa Finlay > > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM > > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > > Mills > > > > As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am > > carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing > > them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic > > Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. > > My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this > > manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to > > be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a > > separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. > > I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after > > the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. > > > > Melissa Finlay > > www.finlayfamily.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > > message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:16:28 -0500 > > From: Dianne Holley <Dianne@HolleyArt.com> > > To: "'Elizabeth Shown Mills'" <eshown@comcast.net>, > > <TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com> > > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > > Mills > > Message-ID: <034501d2a409$f93c3860$ebb4a920$@HolleyArt.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Thank you, Elizabeth!! > > > > Dianne Holley > > dianne@cmemories.us > > Austin, TX > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > Behalf Of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > Sent: March 23, 2017 13:52 > > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > > Mills > > > > Melissa, > > > > No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I > > long ago decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even > > misleading to me in retrospect-because each research effort is based > > on a certain set of parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. > > Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new > > people are continually being added who would not have been covered > > by earlier research in this-or-that item on my log. > > > > The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows > > the template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in > > the mid-to-late 80s, I began the > > "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that > > many now use. I follow this practice not just for client work but > > for my own family research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. > > > > Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a > > different organization, etc., the basic process is this: > > > > Step 1: > > As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the > > "background" information--identifying > > - the person who is being researched > > - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built > > - the key associates > > - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' > > upon which prior research is built > > - any limitations on the project > > - sources to be searched (a to-do list) > > > > Step 2: > > Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section > > and, as I use each item on my source list, I start a "research > > note," in which I create > > - a full citation to that source; > > - comments on any problems I observe with that source; > > - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or > > transcripts here); and > > - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits > > or conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional > > work it might suggest. > > > > When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list > > and at it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." > > If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note > > there to say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to > > investigate further in that source, I'll add whatever note or > > comment or details needed at the point I come back to this. (And, of > > course, any analytical comment that is attached to an abstract or a > > transcript, must be clearly separated from the abstract or the > > transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into the actual details > > from the document. I typically add my comments in a block indent, > > headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will clearly > > know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) > > > > Step 3: > > When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right > > there onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at > > the moment I used each source, given that later findings might have > > altered a possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will > > link with something found earlier, to create new insight and new > > possibilities that I need to comment upon in the report. > > > > Step 4: > > When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below > > the "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the > > high points of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. > > > > Step 5: > > I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. > > Any unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved > > to this new research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new > > plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I > > come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from > > the end of the last report, open up a new report for the new block > > of research, and plug in the plan that I created at the end of the > > last report.) > > > > > > After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person > > who is key to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... > > > > Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my > > HistoricPathways site also will have seen two distinctively different critters: > > (a) research reports; and > > (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: > > William Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) > > > > A research report is a technical account of one specific block of > > research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key > > people and key associates, we also need a summary of all information > > we have found on that person to-date-incorporating all the the > > different blocks of research we have done. The standard "biography" > > that is created by gen software does not fill this need. In the > > creation of those relational database biographies, we extract a > > "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug them together into > > designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with either the > > software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a > > nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a > > specific document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back then when we didn't know as much as we do now. > > > > So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by > > which I can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated > > for this person--exactly what the record says--in chronological > > sequence, together with my clearly separate analyses of each > > finding. That's what the individual "research notes summaries" do > > for me. Consequently, when I finish a report on a block of > > research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each new finding to my > > "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in wherever it belongs in the chronology. > > > > Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this > > topic, "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, > > Research, Data Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice > > before at one conference or another, so it won't be new to some of > > you. The accompanying syllabus material goes into a lot more detail > > about the process I outlined above--and the session itself details > > processes that there wasn't enough room for in the 4-page syllabus material. > > > > Elizabeth > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG HistoricPathways.com > > EvidenceExplained.com > > > > AUTHOR/EDITOR OF > > Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian Evidence Explained: > > Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace Professional Genealogy: > > A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians > > The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color & other works on > > research methodology & Southern history > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > Behalf Of Melissa Finlay > > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM > > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > > Mills > > > > As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am > > carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing > > them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic > > Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. > > My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this > > manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to > > be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a > > separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. > > I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after > > the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. > > > > Melissa Finlay > > www.finlayfamily.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > > message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > > message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM Digest, Vol 11, Issue 72 > > *************************************************************** > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you, Elizabeth!! Dianne Holley dianne@cmemories.us Austin, TX -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Shown Mills Sent: March 23, 2017 13:52 To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills Melissa, No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier research in this-or-that item on my log. The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the mid-to-late 80s, I began the "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different organization, etc., the basic process is this: Step 1: As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the "background" information--identifying - the person who is being researched - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built - the key associates - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon which prior research is built - any limitations on the project - sources to be searched (a to-do list) Step 2: Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I create - a full citation to that source; - comments on any problems I observe with that source; - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts here); and - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it might suggest. When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) Step 3: When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I used each source, given that later findings might have altered a possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I need to comment upon in the report. Step 4: When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. Step 5: I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this new research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is key to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site also will have seen two distinctively different critters: (a) research reports; and (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) A research report is a technical account of one specific block of research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back then when we didn't know as much as we do now. So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in wherever it belongs in the chronology. Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough room for in the 4-page syllabus material. Elizabeth -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG HistoricPathways.com EvidenceExplained.com AUTHOR/EDITOR OF Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color & other works on research methodology & Southern history -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Finlay Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Melissa, No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier research in this-or-that item on my log. The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the mid-to-late 80s, I began the "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different organization, etc., the basic process is this: Step 1: As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the "background" information--identifying - the person who is being researched - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built - the key associates - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon which prior research is built - any limitations on the project - sources to be searched (a to-do list) Step 2: Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I create - a full citation to that source; - comments on any problems I observe with that source; - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts here); and - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it might suggest. When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) Step 3: When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I used each source, given that later findings might have altered a possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I need to comment upon in the report. Step 4: When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. Step 5: I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this new research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is key to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site also will have seen two distinctively different critters: (a) research reports; and (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) A research report is a technical account of one specific block of research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back then when we didn't know as much as we do now. So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in wherever it belongs in the chronology. Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough room for in the 4-page syllabus material. Elizabeth -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG HistoricPathways.com EvidenceExplained.com AUTHOR/EDITOR OF Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color & other works on research methodology & Southern history -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Finlay Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Melanie, Jill and Elizabeth, Thank you for the additional tips and insights. As I study and practice this type of report writing, I feel like this is THE element that has been missing from my research efforts for 26 years. It truly is the most efficient, cohesive, and easily-referenced way I have ever tried to record my research. I appreciate each of you willingly mentoring those of us who are working our way to the next level in the field. Elizabeth, your "Information Overload" class is at the very top of my list of classes I want to take. Unfortunately, I cannot make it to NGS-Raleigh this year. Perhaps at a future conference, or even a webinar event? Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org > On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:16 PM, transitional-genealogists-forum-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Send TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM mailing list submissions to > transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists2.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/transitional-genealogists-forum > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > transitional-genealogists-forum-request@rootsweb.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > transitional-genealogists-forum-owner@rootsweb.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > (Elizabeth Shown Mills) > 2. Re: Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > (Dianne Holley) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:51:38 -0500 > From: "Elizabeth Shown Mills" <eshown@comcast.net> > To: <TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > Mills > Message-ID: <044101d2a406$80fed8b0$82fc8a10$@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Melissa, > > No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago > decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in > retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of > parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. > Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people > are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier > research in this-or-that item on my log. > > The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the > template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the > mid-to-late 80s, I began the > "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now > use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family > research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. > > Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different > organization, etc., the basic process is this: > > Step 1: > As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the > "background" information--identifying > - the person who is being researched > - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built > - the key associates > - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon > which prior research is built > - any limitations on the project > - sources to be searched (a to-do list) > > Step 2: > Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I > use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I > create > - a full citation to that source; > - comments on any problems I observe with that source; > - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts > here); and > - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or > conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it might > suggest. > > When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at > it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." > If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to > say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate > further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed > at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment > that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated > from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into > the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a > block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will > clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) > > Step 3: > When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there > onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I > used each source, given that later findings might have altered a > possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with > something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I > need to comment upon in the report. > > Step 4: > When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the > "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points > of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. > > Step 5: > I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any > unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this new > research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new > plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I > come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end > of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and > plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) > > > After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is key > to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... > > Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site > also will have seen two distinctively different critters: > (a) research reports; and > (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William > Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) > > A research report is a technical account of one specific block of > research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people > and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found > on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of > research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen > software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational > database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug > them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with > either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a > nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific > document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back > then when we didn't know as much as we do now. > > So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I > can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this > person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together > with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the > individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I > finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each > new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in > wherever it belongs in the chronology. > > Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, > "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data > Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one > conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying > syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined > above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough > room for in the 4-page syllabus material. > > Elizabeth > > -------------------------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG > HistoricPathways.com > EvidenceExplained.com > > AUTHOR/EDITOR OF > Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian > Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace > Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, > Lecturers & Librarians > The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color > & other works on research methodology & Southern history > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Melissa Finlay > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully > studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so > generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, > Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, > and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve > as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of > report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type > of report. > I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same > pattern. Thank you for sharing them. > > Melissa Finlay > www.finlayfamily.org > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:16:28 -0500 > From: Dianne Holley <Dianne@HolleyArt.com> > To: "'Elizabeth Shown Mills'" <eshown@comcast.net>, > <TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown > Mills > Message-ID: <034501d2a409$f93c3860$ebb4a920$@HolleyArt.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Thank you, Elizabeth!! > > Dianne Holley > dianne@cmemories.us > Austin, TX > > -----Original Message----- > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Elizabeth Shown Mills > Sent: March 23, 2017 13:52 > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > Melissa, > > No. I do not maintain a separate research log for each family. I long ago > decided that doing so was of minimal value--and even misleading to me in > retrospect-because each research effort is based on a certain set of > parameters. Certain people, certain associates, certain presumed facts. > Those parameters are not the same for everyone in the family and new people > are continually being added who would not have been covered by earlier > research in this-or-that item on my log. > > The research reports that you've found at HistoricPathways follows the > template I've used since about 1980. When I bought my laptop, in the > mid-to-late 80s, I began the > "write-the-research-report-as-you-do-your-research" practice that many now > use. I follow this practice not just for client work but for my own family > research. I follow it for online research as well as onsite work. > > Although some circumstances or types of problems call for a different > organization, etc., the basic process is this: > > Step 1: > As I analyze the research problem I'm about to tackle, I create the > "background" information--identifying > - the person who is being researched > - the key "facts" upon which the research will be built > - the key associates > - any problems that my analysis has revealed in the set of 'facts' upon > which prior research is built > - any limitations on the project > - sources to be searched (a to-do list) > > Step 2: > Onsite (which includes online), I open a "Research Notes" section and, as I > use each item on my source list, I start a "research note," in which I > create > - a full citation to that source; > - comments on any problems I observe with that source; > - whatever findings the source yielded (I make abstracts or transcripts > here); and > - my analytical observations about what I've just found, how it fits or > conflicts with something known or believed, and any additional work it might > suggest. > > When I finish using each source, I move that item off my to-do list and at > it to the tail end of my report, under a header such as "Resources Used." > If the search of that item yielded negative results, I add a note there to > say so. If there were individuals or items I might need to investigate > further in that source, I'll add whatever note or comment or details needed > at the point I come back to this. (And, of course, any analytical comment > that is attached to an abstract or a transcript, must be clearly separated > from the abstract or the transcript, so that my thoughts aren't mixed into > the actual details from the document. I typically add my comments in a > block indent, headed by the word "COMMENT," so readers of the report will > clearly know that this is my personal comment, not part of the original.) > > Step 3: > When research is done, I reread the whole report I had created right there > onsite (or online). I reevaluate the thoughts I recorded at the moment I > used each source, given that later findings might have altered a > possibility. Or, more often, something I found later will link with > something found earlier, to create new insight and new possibilities that I > need to comment upon in the report. > > Step 4: > When all the analysis is done, I go back to the first page, below the > "Background" section and add an "Executive Summary" to hit the high points > of what I found, concluded, or dismissed from further consideration. > > Step 5: > I create a new "Further Research" section at the end of the report. Any > unexamined resources left on my initial to-do list will be moved to this new > research plan--if they are still relevant. New items are added to the new > plan on the basis of what I learned from this block of research. (When I > come back to this research project, I then take this work plan from the end > of the last report, open up a new report for the new block of research, and > plug in the plan that I created at the end of the last report.) > > > After the report is finished, I do one more thing for each person who is key > to my research. A bit of background explanation might be needed here. .... > > Those of you who have seen some of the reports at my HistoricPathways site > also will have seen two distinctively different critters: > (a) research reports; and > (b) individual research notes for specific individuals (examples: William > Cooksey; George, John, and Thomas Watts; Samuel Witter) > > A research report is a technical account of one specific block of > research-just the work done in that one block. However, for our key people > and key associates, we also need a summary of all information we have found > on that person to-date-incorporating all the the different blocks of > research we have done. The standard "biography" that is created by gen > software does not fill this need. In the creation of those relational > database biographies, we extract a "fact" here and a "fact" there and plug > them together into designated fields, weaving facts into a narrative with > either the software's boilerplate or else our own thoughts. The result is a > nice narrative, but it too-often leaves us wondering whether a specific > document actually said those words or whether it was our supposition back > then when we didn't know as much as we do now. > > So, for each key person I'm seriously working on, I want a means by which I > can see all the abstracts or transcripts I have accumulated for this > person--exactly what the record says--in chronological sequence, together > with my clearly separate analyses of each finding. That's what the > individual "research notes summaries" do for me. Consequently, when I > finish a report on a block of research, I do cut-and-paste to transfer each > new finding to my "notes summary" on each key person--plugging it in > wherever it belongs in the chronology. > > Incidentally, at NGS-Raleigh, I'm slated to do a session on this topic, > "Information Overload? Effective Project Management, Research, Data > Management & Analysis." It's a topic I've done twice before at one > conference or another, so it won't be new to some of you. The accompanying > syllabus material goes into a lot more detail about the process I outlined > above--and the session itself details processes that there wasn't enough > room for in the 4-page syllabus material. > > Elizabeth > > -------------------------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG > HistoricPathways.com > EvidenceExplained.com > > AUTHOR/EDITOR OF > Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian Evidence Explained: > Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace Professional Genealogy: > A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians The > Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color & other works on research > methodology & Southern history > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Melissa Finlay > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:40 AM > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully > studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so > generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, > Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, > and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve > as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of > report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type > of report. > I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same > pattern. Thank you for sharing them. > > Melissa Finlay > www.finlayfamily.org > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > ------------------------------ > > End of TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM Digest, Vol 11, Issue 72 > ***************************************************************

Thank you, Ms Mills. As usual a thorough explanation of the question and an excellent lesson for those of us learning. I have copied and will save this explanation to refer to often as I have already done with Professional Genealogy and the Historic Pathways website. In addition, I have purchased your lecture CDs, including the one on Information Overload, and have listened to it over and over. (One reason I have dogs, every morning I walk them and listen to all the wonderful podcasts and lectures available to us digitally.) I might mention how sincerely appreciative I am for those of you who allow your presentations to be recorded so that those of us who cannot attend every conference are able to enjoy the knowledge shared. thanks to Melissa for the question and to all those who also put in their 2 cents worth. All is interesting and valuable to those of us learning to be good genealogists. Margie Beldin Richland, Washington

Melissa, Thank you soooo much for this question. I am NOT a professional but I am doing research for a friend and wanted to approach it as a professional would and I, too, was wondering how to approach this very thing. I started to write the report, then found I didn't know how to incorporate all the sources I had looked at, so thought a research log would be a good addition, but how, and then total confusion and so have not finished the project (luckily he is not in a hurry, and I am doing this to learn and not for pay). I too have studied E. S. Mills reports, finding them fascinating, better than CSI, and keep reading and reading the chapter in Professional Genealogy. Thanks for asking; looking forward to the answer and will contact Melanie in order to read her report. Thanks, Margie Beldin Richland, Washington Previous message Message: 1 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:39:46 -0600 From: Melissa Finlay <melissa@finlayfamily.org> To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills Message-ID: <D9C4D31E-F2DB-44F2-A16E-6F4534056D31@finlayfamily.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org

Not only that but it untimely is my research plan as well. See Elissa Powell's "write as you go" webinar on APG site. (?) Here are my steps 1. Put my standard title block on the top. 2. Transfer info from contract for background, including research question, limitations and compensation, known or provided information 3. Develop a research plan and for each item construct a "draft" of the citation with the holes to fill in if information is found. 4. Start the research. Order may change; new research avenues may get added and some deleted, etc. 5. If information is not found, the citation, now revised to reflect negative findings, is moved to a separate category 6. While I am researching and writing I build the section of recommended future work. 7. I add a cover letter and the invoice. That is how I go about it. It's taken me a while to become a believer, but it so increases my efficiency that the extra time up front pays for itself. I'll be interested in the thoughts of others. Others probably do them differently. Jill > On Mar 23, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Melanie D. Holtz CG <melanie_holtz@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Studying Ms. Mill's reports is a fantastic way to learn quality and professional reporting. > > > In my work, I do incorporate the research log into my reports. Where and how this is placed within the report can vary slightly by genealogist. Those that wish to see an example of one of my reports [that I have permission to share] can feel free to email me privately. > > > Sincerely, > > Melanie D. Holtz, CG > Lo Schiavo Genealogica > 7283-102 NC Highway 42 W, #402 > Raleigh, NC 27603 > 919-889-3581 > Melanie@holtzresearch.com<mailto:Melanie@holtzresearch.com> > www.italyancestry.com<http://www.italyancestry.com> > > Specializing in Italian Genealogical Research and Dual Citizenship > > Subscribe to Newsletter<http://www.holtzresearch.com/subscribe-to-newsletter/> > > > > ________________________________ > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM <transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Dianne Holley <Dianne@holleyart.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:47 PM > To: 'Melissa Finlay'; TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > Excellent Question Melissa - I'm looking forward to the response(s)! > > Dianne Holley > dianne@cmemories.us > Austin, TX > > -----Original Message----- > From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Melissa Finlay > Sent: March 23, 2017 09:40 > To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills > > As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully > studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so > generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, > Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, > and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve > as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of > report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type > of report. > I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same > pattern. Thank you for sharing them. > > Melissa Finlay > www.finlayfamily.org<http://www.finlayfamily.org> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Excellent Question Melissa - I'm looking forward to the response(s)! Dianne Holley dianne@cmemories.us Austin, TX -----Original Message----- From: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Finlay Sent: March 23, 2017 09:40 To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Studying the research reports of Elizabeth Shown Mills As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

As I work towards becoming a professional genealogist, I am carefully studying the research reports (and articles about writing them) shared so generously by Elizabeth Shown Mills on the Historic Pathways website, Evidence Explained website, and the APG website. My question for Elizabeth, and any others who write reports in this manner: does the report also serve as your research log? It seems to be robust enough to me to fill the job of report and log. Keeping a separate log seems redundant to me with this type of report. I am learning so much from studying these reports and writing after the same pattern. Thank you for sharing them. Melissa Finlay www.finlayfamily.org

Thank you, Elise and Barbara. Sometimes the hardest part of finding information online is knowing what terms to put in the search box. This is especially difficult in FS.org when searching the Help Center; I don't seem to think like the people who enter the tags. So I did google Massachusetts General Law - Out of State Births and did come up with an explanation but I don't think it is what I need: *Section 1B. Any resident of the commonwealth who is the parent of a child born outside the commonwealth may personally present to the town clerk of the town where such parent was domiciled at the time of such birth, or in the case of an adopted child, at the time of such adoption, an original certificate or other written evidence of the birth, and a certified copy of the adoption decree if adopted, or a duly authenticated photostatic copy thereof. The town clerk may file such documents as evidence establishing such birth or adoption, or may make a copy thereof, which he shall attest as a true copy, and which he may then file as such evidence. * There are too many "may"s in this. They "may register" register implies a choice, IMHO. Whereas I think something more "requiring" is involved with the births I have been encountering. I will check the link that Barbara included but can't right now. Just wanted to be sure to say thank you. And, Elise, glad I gave you an opportunity to advertise GRIP. Maybe someday. And Judy Russell is never a disappointment so for those who do get to go, I know they will learn a lot. Thanks Margie Beldin Washington State

To find an answer for how the practice evolved, you could look at two sources. For modern law (and I am assuming that was what your question was about) you would find when the law changed. Then you would look at the legislative testimony for bill that became the Act or law during that session. The testimony would set out the reasons. This is much easier to do for federal law where the record is printed. For much older laws (colonial in the case of Massachusetts) you are not apt to find committee testimony. While is it possible that warnings-out meant that parents would want to assure that their children had a place of birth, I’ve seen so many births registered in new towns that the parents moved to, that I think it could also involve leaving a clear record for when the children reach the age of majority, when a man could vote or marry, or the age a woman could marry without her parents’ permission. It would also help in settling intestate probate cases. That is all just conjecture at this point. I’ve done blog postings about Model Laws regarding vital records. A description of the genesis of the 2011 Model Act can be found here: http://massgencouncil.org/index.php/easyblog/entry/what-is-the-2011-model-act-and-regulations-should-genealogists-worry Efforts to standardize vital statistics laws have been afoot in the U.S. since the beginning of the 20th century. Google Books shows many such works. Here is one from 1903. It may or may not include justification for different practices: https://books.google.com/books?id=DfCGv_kC-KwC Barbara From: Denise Cross [mailto:crossd4@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:30 AM To: Barbara Mathews <barbara@demandinggenealogist.com> Cc: Transitional Genealogists <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [TGF] Registering out-of-state births in Massachusetts Did this law evolve from the practice of warnings out? I've seen interesting patterns of registrations in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries where a family that moved between locations would reregister births in the new town. I've also seen a family move out of and back into a town that registered only the children born while resident and had a gap in the middle for children born while living elsewhere. Each town must have decided on its level of interest in supporting said children should the family become unable to do so. -Denise