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

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