Good question, Ann. But the answer is not going to be as cut-and-dried as you'd like. In fact, it's likely to be "long and convoluted." ???? In a report for one block of research, when we feel we need to "explain the research," our decision on placement depends upon what it is we need to explain. There is no one hard, fast, rule that covers every situation. For example: - If we need to explain something about a source from which we take several records, then a logical place to put the discussion would be at the point where we introduce that source. - If we need to explain something about one record from that source, then we can place that discussion under "Comments" after we present the record. - When we feel we need to "explain the research" (say, the methodology used), then in the report, before we launch into "Research Findings," we can insert a section that we call "Methodology Used." When it comes to proof arguments, that's another set of circumstances. In my experience, it's rarely possible to mount a proof argument on the basis of one block of research. In the areas and time frames in which I work, meeting the first criteria of the Genealogical Proof Standard—reasonably exhaustive research—usually takes multiple blocks of work. That said, a general framework might be this: If we can meet the GPS in a single block of research, then in the place of an Executive Summary, we might (a) label that section: "Proof Summary" and then bullet point the several pieces of uncontested direct evidence that supports our conclusion. (b) label that section: "Proof Argument" and then proceed to develop the case we've built with an assemblage of conflicting, indirect, or negative evidence. After this "Proof Summary" or "Proof Argument" (with each piece of evidence documented), then we would proceed with the section "Research Findings," wherein we report to the client, document by document, each item we examined and found. If the proof argument has gelled across several research segments, and we feel we've finally found the last piece of the puzzle to do a proof argument—but we don't have time to do the proof argument in that block the client has paid for--then we might - present the raw evidence under "Research Findings" and - tell the client (under the brief "Executive Summary" and/or "Further Work") that these new findings can be correlated with findings from previous research to build a case that solves the problem. You can suggest that as the next step in the research process and estimate the number of hours it will take to develop that proof argument. In the latter situation, you might also ask the client if s/he would be interested in submitting that proof argument to your state journal or a national journal (depending upon the complexity of the problem), so that the evidence for XYZ will become a matter of record for others working on that family. Publishing your proof argument will help to combat wild speculation that others make on online trees, and can be good publicity for your skills as a problem solver. The bottom line is that every situation is different. If you've gone through some of the reports I've posted, you've see that there's a general pattern but each report handles some issue differently. As with the published case studies, the way we "get a feel for what decision to make in this-or-that-case" is by studying as many examples as possible of reports others have written. If we dissect those other examples (be they case studies or reports), if we define the particular issues involved, analyze how they're handled, and study why or how the approach works (or doesn't!), we'll soon reach the point that we feel comfortable in making our own decisions. 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 Ann Watson Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 7:23 AM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Elizabeth Shown Mills research report process Ms. Mills, What I do not “get” and am struggling with in my reports is, if you have a complex situation and need to write discussion or proof or lack thereof, explaining the research, where does that go? I have been putting that sort of thing in my comments about each source, but there is no narrative to follow in that case and I think it is really confusing and ends up being too much and too complicated. I am really having a hard time with this. My reports end up being really long and convoluted. Thank you — Ann Family Pictures Genealogy Ann D. Watson ann@familypicturesgenealogy.com<mailto:ann@familypicturesgenealogy.com> www.familypicturesgenealogy.com<http://www.familypicturesgenealogy.com> ------------------------------- 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, You have no idea how helpful this is. It is actually reassuring to me that it is not cut and dried! First, your statement that “it is rarely possible to mount a proof argument on the basis of one block of research” was reassuring. I am already finding that, because the people that have come to me in Vermont so far are already stuck and up against a brick wall, so the projects I am presented with are taking "multiple blocks of work.” Secondly, your explanation of putting another section in really clarifies a lot for me: - When we feel we need to "explain the research" (say, the methodology used), then in the report, before we launch into "Research Findings," we can insert a section that we call "Methodology Used.” ….etc. I had been thinking I had to fit all the explanations into comments after each document, which of course was not working at all when I had a discussion to present. Thank you ever so much for this lengthy and detailed explanation! Best, Ann Family Pictures Genealogy Ann D. Watson ann@familypicturesgenealogy.com<mailto:ann@familypicturesgenealogy.com> www.familypicturesgenealogy.com<http://www.familypicturesgenealogy.com> On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Elizabeth Shown Mills <eshown@comcast.net<mailto:eshown@comcast.net>> wrote: Good question, Ann. But the answer is not going to be as cut-and-dried as you'd like. In fact, it's likely to be "long and convoluted." ???? In a report for one block of research, when we feel we need to "explain the research," our decision on placement depends upon what it is we need to explain. There is no one hard, fast, rule that covers every situation. For example: - If we need to explain something about a source from which we take several records, then a logical place to put the discussion would be at the point where we introduce that source. - If we need to explain something about one record from that source, then we can place that discussion under "Comments" after we present the record. - When we feel we need to "explain the research" (say, the methodology used), then in the report, before we launch into "Research Findings," we can insert a section that we call "Methodology Used." When it comes to proof arguments, that's another set of circumstances. In my experience, it's rarely possible to mount a proof argument on the basis of one block of research. In the areas and time frames in which I work, meeting the first criteria of the Genealogical Proof Standard—reasonably exhaustive research—usually takes multiple blocks of work. That said, a general framework might be this: If we can meet the GPS in a single block of research, then in the place of an Executive Summary, we might (a) label that section: "Proof Summary" and then bullet point the several pieces of uncontested direct evidence that supports our conclusion. (b) label that section: "Proof Argument" and then proceed to develop the case we've built with an assemblage of conflicting, indirect, or negative evidence. After this "Proof Summary" or "Proof Argument" (with each piece of evidence documented), then we would proceed with the section "Research Findings," wherein we report to the client, document by document, each item we examined and found. If the proof argument has gelled across several research segments, and we feel we've finally found the last piece of the puzzle to do a proof argument—but we don't have time to do the proof argument in that block the client has paid for--then we might - present the raw evidence under "Research Findings" and - tell the client (under the brief "Executive Summary" and/or "Further Work") that these new findings can be correlated with findings from previous research to build a case that solves the problem. You can suggest that as the next step in the research process and estimate the number of hours it will take to develop that proof argument. In the latter situation, you might also ask the client if s/he would be interested in submitting that proof argument to your state journal or a national journal (depending upon the complexity of the problem), so that the evidence for XYZ will become a matter of record for others working on that family. Publishing your proof argument will help to combat wild speculation that others make on online trees, and can be good publicity for your skills as a problem solver. The bottom line is that every situation is different. If you've gone through some of the reports I've posted, you've see that there's a general pattern but each report handles some issue differently. As with the published case studies, the way we "get a feel for what decision to make in this-or-that-case" is by studying as many examples as possible of reports others have written. If we dissect those other examples (be they case studies or reports), if we define the particular issues involved, analyze how they're handled, and study why or how the approach works (or doesn't!), we'll soon reach the point that we feel comfortable in making our own decisions. Elizabeth -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG HistoricPathways.com<http://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 Ann Watson Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 7:23 AM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Elizabeth Shown Mills research report process Ms. Mills, What I do not “get” and am struggling with in my reports is, if you have a complex situation and need to write discussion or proof or lack thereof, explaining the research, where does that go? I have been putting that sort of thing in my comments about each source, but there is no narrative to follow in that case and I think it is really confusing and ends up being too much and too complicated. I am really having a hard time with this. My reports end up being really long and convoluted. Thank you — Ann Family Pictures Genealogy Ann D. Watson ann@familypicturesgenealogy.com<mailto:ann@familypicturesgenealogy.com> www.familypicturesgenealogy.com<http://www.familypicturesgenealogy.com> ------------------------------- 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