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 > >