As active researchers and writers, there is often a need—or at least a temptation—to cite ourselves as an authoritative source for a particular point. Whether it is appropriate to do so depends upon the circumstances.

On a personal level, we are a valid source only for events or circumstances that we personally experienced in a cognizant state. We cannot, for example, attest our own birth; although we were physically there, we had not developed cognizance. If we have no other authority, we can only attest that we were taught to celebrate our birth on a particular day of the year.

As researchers, citations to our own published work may or may not be justified. For some historical subjects there is a rich body of literature and a wide range of interpretations. In other instances, a subject may be so narrow that no one else has investigated it to the breadth and depth that we have—if at all. 

Five questions can help us determine whether our own prior work can be appropriately cited as one form of “proof ” for our assertions:

• If we are citing a prior conclusion or proof argument, has that conclusion of ours been vetted and the argument published in a peer-reviewed journal?  Assertions that have never been vetted are generally not considered to be authoritative.
• If we are citing underlying research reports, are those reports publicly available—at, say, a website where they can be immediately accessed and studied in depth?
• Are other authorities available? Is the topic a general one on which multiple people have published, including ourselves? Are opinions compatible, although each naturally will have varying nuances? If so, then citing ourselves may strike our readers as self-promotion. 
• What is the scope and focus of our prior research? Is the topic a highly specialized one that no one else has addressed—say, a quantitative analysis of a community, or an intricately solved identity issue, or a reference work that is not otherwise available? If there is no one else to cite, then a reference to our own work would be entirely appropriate.
• Are our conclusions unique? Did our findings or conclusions correct or challenge other significant publications on the subject? If so, then citations to both would be appropriate.

In sum: if our own prior publications have gone into considerably more depth than our current piece of writing allows, then it would be reasonable to cite our prior work for a more in-depth discussion. We might also cite others who hold a counter view, to offer a balanced perspective.

The post Using One’s Self as a Source – by Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

(EE4: 2.12)
Modern genealogists are blessed to have billions of records easily available—in print, in some derivative format, and as images online.  When we examine a published item to identify the elements that need recording, we should bear in mind that published history materials commonly have two formats in need of identification:

• Original work: Most such material originated in manuscript or published format—whether in modern times or antiquity.
• Modern form: This material is now being published in a new format by a firm or an agency that is not the original creator.

Therefore, our citations should

• distinguish between image copies and other derivatives such as abstracts, transcripts, and information extracted into databases;
• credit properly the original creator;
• credit properly the producer of the images or electronic publication;
• identify clearly the nature of the material;
• identify the images or electronic publication completely enough for others to locate it;
• cite the specific place (webpage, frame, etc.) in the database or on the roll, fiche, etc., at which we found the relevant item; and
• cite the date on which the images or data set were created, updated, or accessed—as well as the date of the original record or original publication.

Some publishers of databases and record images add a preface informing us that they obtained their data from another firm or individual. To analyze the reliability of their material we also need to record

• the identity of the entity (individual or agency) that first assembled that data set;
• the original source(s) from which the data was taken and the year or time frame in which the original was created;
• whether a database entry represents full or partial extraction from those sources; or
• whether the record set was generated from materials randomly encountered by the original compiler.

Tracking the provenance (origin) of derivative material can be difficult. A currently marketed database might have been purchased from a firm no longer in existence, which might have bought its information from a book compiler, who might have assembled materials randomly published elsewhere. Such an entity would be of significantly different quality from, say,

• a new database created by a learned society using skilled copyists to extract every document in a record set; or
• a collection of images created by a company that contracts with an archive to reproduce an entire record series. 

If our attempts to track the origin of the material are unsuccessful, we should say so and explain the efforts we have made. This will help us and others avoid unnecessary repetition of the work. When we carefully report our steps, we or a user of our work may be able later to fill some of the gaps in our current research methods or findings.

The post Using Derivate & Imaged Sources – By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

(EE4: 1.3)
Each assertion we make as history researchers must be supported by proof. However, proof is not synonymous with a source. The most reliable proof is a composite of information drawn from multiple sources that meet three criteria:

• They represent quality materials;
• They are independently created; and 
• They accurately report the original circumstances.

For history researchers, there is no such thing as proof that can never be rebutted. We were not there when history happened, and the eyewitness accounts of those who were — if and when those accounts exist — may not be reliable. Every conclusion we reach about circumstances, events, identities, or kinships is simply a decision we base upon the weight of the evidence we have assembled. Our challenge is to accumulate the best information possible and to train ourselves to skillfully analyze and interpret what it has to say.

In this process, we typically reach conclusions of three types, each of which carries a different weight:

• Hypotheses are propositions based upon an analysis of evidence at hand. They are used to define a focus for additional research. In testing any hypothesis, we must labor to disprove it as diligently as we labor to prove it. Our role is not just that of judge and jury, but also devil’s advocate.

• Theories are tentative conclusions reached after a hypothesis has been extensively researched but the evidence still seems short of proof. A theory should never be presented as a fact. Any theory we propose should carry qualifiers. Perhaps, possibly, likely, and similar terms can express our degree of confidence in a theory, but we are still obliged to explain our reasoning.

• Proof is a conclusion based upon the sum of the evidence that supports a valid assertion or deduction. It’s a conclusion drawn from many sources — quality sources, all independently created. Proof must be backed by thorough research and documentation, by reliable information that is correctly interpreted and carefully correlated, and by a well-reasoned and written analysis of the problem and the evidence.

A conclusion cannot always be reached. When the accumulated materials are well appraised, the evidence may not support any decision at all. If it does not, then the question must remain open — the fact of the situation remains unknown — until sufficient evidence is developed. 

If extenuating circumstances pressure for a decision (as with impending court testimony in a dispute over, say, historical property or heirship), then the researcher must present all relevant evidence, interpret it accurately, and appropriately qualify whatever hypothesis seems justified. This is commonly done using terms that denote levels of confidence, as discussed in this chapter at §1.6).

The post Our Research Conclusions: Are they Hypotheses? Theories? Or Proof? – By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

In the first review, archivist and genealogist Melissa Barker writes, “Mills has done an excellent job in this fourth edition. . . . Chapter 3 is a brand-new chapter for the fourth edition and is titled “Building Citations” and includes 14 templates that replace the previous 170 QuickCheck models in previous editions. . . . One of my favorite chapters is Chapter 4 titled “Archives and Artifacts” because I am an archivist . . . . Genealogists need to understand the hierarchy of archived collections, and Mills goes into detail about the layers that are found in archived collections and offers her expertise in composing a source citation. . . .Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace. Fourth Edition is a must have for any genealogist’s reference shelf. The quick references, thorough explanations and expertise given by Elizabeth Shown Mills are even more enhanced in this fourth edition. .  . . I can highly recommend this new edition.

Reviewer Nancy Walczyk, who writes the second review and also teaches a class on source citation, writes, “As Elizabeth Shown Mills so clearly articulates in the first two chapters of this book, citations are about truly and deeply understanding the source; format and punctuation rules are not the purpose. The revisions to those two chapters in the new fourth edition make the point even easier for beginners to grasp. But I was most excited about Chapter 3, the new chapter  titled “Building a Citation.”  This chapter helps beginners understand the components of a citation by focusing on the Basic Seven Building Blocks . . . Creator, Title, Description, Place, Date/Year, Publisher, Specific Item.  The fourteen templates each start with a table explaining how the Basic Seven Building Blocks apply to that type of source and provide examples.  . .  Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace. Fourth Edition belongs on every beginner’s bookshelf.”

The post More Glowing Reviews of ‘Evidence Explained’ Fourth Edition appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Each reviewer provided a strong, overall endorsement for the new edition. Mr. Seaver, writing on February 18th, asserted, “This book is a necessary work for every researcher’s bookshelf or desktop, or reference book computer file folder.  I used the digital version of the First Edition for seven years, and the Third Edition for 9 years, and can’t do without them.” According to Ms. Stufflebean, writing on February 25^th, “Elizabeth Shown Mills spent almost a year working on Evidence Explained, Fourth Edition.; she has done a fabulous job! I really like this “slimmed down” version of the best guide out there that teaches us how to correctly record all the necessary details to build accurate citations for our genealogical research.” Marian Wood’s February 24^th review had high praise for author Elizabeth Shown Mills, writing “[she] has done a masterful job in revising Evidence Explained, 4th edition, because she’s both streamlined and thoughtfully updated the content of this indispensable reference book . . . Since the first edition was published in 2007, this has been the gold standard for understanding and citing genealogical sources. Actually, it’s the platinum standard because of the clear, robust explanations about the wide variety of resources we use to research and document our ancestry. Mills well goes beyond how to cite specific sources–she delves deep into source quality and what that means for the credibility of evidence and, ultimately, the credibility of our conclusions.”

The reviews also homed in on the new Chapter 3, “Building a Citation, Templates 1-14,” which accounts for the streamlined version of the fourth edition. Linda Stufflebean had this to say about it: “Elizabeth Shown Mills spent almost a year working on Evidence Explained, Fourth Edition.; she has done a fabulous job! I really like this “slimmed down” version of the best guide out there that teaches us how to correctly record all the necessary details to build accurate citations for our genealogical research . . . The Fourth Edition, with Chapter 3 leading the way, makes the process of creating source citations seem much more manageable. . . .Chapter 3 will become the initial “go to” chapter for most of us as we seek to master citing our sources.” Randy Seaver made a point of explaining the arrangement of that chapter,” The 14 Templates in Chapter 3 are in three sections: Templates 1 to 5 are for Published Materials, Templates 6 to 11 are for Unpublished Material, [and] Templates 12-14 are for records for which unique constructions are needed. Each Template has a table for the Building Blocks of the citation (e.g., author, title, place, date, descriptor, specific item), with an example, followed by a typical Citation Sentence using the Building Blocks, and Construction Notes to explain details of the citation.  Each Template has a different set of Building Blocks.” Marian Wood remarked that  “Instead of printing dozens of sample templates for us to adapt in citing sources, Mills has simplified the examples into 14 templates that become the building blocks of citations. These templates range from basic book and website citation to citing books, magazines, newspapers, databases, authored manuscripts, and even gravestones viewed personally. Easier for readers to understand, easier for readers to implement.” 

Of course, the reviewers also mentioned various aspects of the book that caught their attention. Ms. Wood encouraged readers not to, “skip over the grey pages at the front of the book. First is “The Evidence Analysis Process Map,” with sources (original or derivative records or authored narrative) that provide information (from an informant who has first-hand, second-hand or unknown level of knowledge) used as evidence for an analysis leading to the genealogical proof of our conclusion. Page 1 is a handy QuickStart guide to diving into Evidence Explained, followed by two pages summarizing the basics of source citations, at a glance.” This reviewer also encouraged genealogists to visit Ms. Mills’  website for its . . . tutorials and other bonus material, . . . .”

Both Mr. Seaver and Ms. Stufflebean published the full table of contents of Evidence Explained, with Mr. Seaver emphasizing that “This significantly revised edition builds on the previous editions, with discussion of the genealogy research process and crafting quality source citations,” and Linda Stufflebean pointing out that “indicative of the massive increase of digital resources available online today. Mills has accordingly expanded the examples of online records that need to be cited in our research.”

Anyone who has been waiting to purchase Evidence Explained, or who owns a copy but wonders about the best way to approach its contents would do well to read any or all of these informative reviews in its entirety.

The post Early Reviews of <i>Evidence Explained</i> Fourth Edition are Glowing appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Citations are flexible structures. They are not rigid formulas from which we dare not deviate lest the Citation Police take away our license to do research.  When and how to deviate is the issue that puzzles most researchers.

The new fourth edition of Evidence Explained adds an entirely new chapter—Building a Citation—to help researchers understand the structure of citations and make appropriate choices.

Beyond any doubt, historical sources are complicated. Unpublished records and manuscripts are archived in complex ways. Images of manuscripts are accessed offline in now-antiquated forms. Others are delivered online through labyrinthian schemes. Citing these materials, as long cautioned at EE2.1, is an art rather than a science. Creating those citations, as cautioned at the new 3.1, requires flexibility. As with any type of structure, certain elements are essential while others are optional. 

EE4’s new chapter will teach you the seven building blocks of a citation. It will then demonstrate how those building blocks can be selectively combined and layered to create a thorough identification for any type of historical source. 

History researchers use three types of citations: 

• First (Full) Reference Notes: for footnotes and endnotes, used at first citation to a source in a piece of writing; also used for document labels
• Subsequent (Shortened) Reference Notes: for repeated references, after a source has been cited in full
• Source List Entries: for a concise list of materials consulted 

The First Reference Note is the default for history researchers. For notetaking, document labeling, and writing, the First Reference Note is where we record all details that identify the evidence for each assertion we make. 

Chapter 3’s tutorial focuses on the First Reference Note. In each of the source-based chapters that follow, EE4 demonstrates how to apply that chapter’s basic templates to a myriad of historical sources. There, each citation example also shows how to shorten that First Reference Note to create Subsequent Notes and Source List Entries.

Yes, citations are flexible—but never whimsical. They are shaped by the nature and organization of the material itself. As a guide to citing history sources, Evidence Explained is committed to helping researchers understand the records they use, to cite them clearly, and cite them thoroughly enough that everyone can understand the likely reliability of each cited source.

The post Citation Tips:  Citing History Sources—Flexibility & Choices. By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Previous posts in this series introduced the concept of layered citations and how they can help us. Researchers also ask a related question:  Do all citations require layers?  No. Here’s a short guide:

Single-layer Citations

In Evidence Style, citations to print-published materials and simple web publications can be handled in a single layer.  For example:

• Books, journal and magazine articles, maps, newspaper items, and other standalone publications, when we consult the physical form, need only a single layer.
• Blogs and websites that create their own material, such as articles and simple databases, require only one layer. 

However, each website item must be carefully analyzed to determine the nature of what we are using. Many websites offer two types of material: (1) material produced in-house, such as databases that serve as indexes to documents; and (2) images of documents housed elsewhere. As a result, some citations to a website may require only one layer, while citations to other databases offered by that same website may require multiple layers. As with all matters related to research, we must analyze each situation and use our judgment.

• Public artifacts that are standalone objects, such as grave markers in a cemetery, can be cited in one layer unless we use images or transcripts online.

This framework allows for multiple sources to be cited within the same reference note.We simply place a period at the end of our citation to each published work, thereby ending that “citation sentence.” Then we begin a new sentence for the next source.  To ensure clarity, Evidence Style does not cite multiple sources within the same citation sentence. (Within the same reference note, yes. Within the same sentence, no.)

Multi-layer Citations

Careful students of history use original documents as the basis for thorough and reliable research. Doing so typically requires multiple layers. The content of those layers is dictated by the manner in which we access the materials: physically or online.

Physical access: Citations to manuscript material that we access in physical form require identification of three things: 

• the document (who, what, when, and where created, followed by the specific page or entry number);
• the organizational scheme in which the document is archived (where maintained);
• the identity and location of that archives (where accessed).

Details for each of these three entities should be grouped in its own layer.Because each layer can have internal commas and other punctuation, the semicolon is again used between layers for a clear separation.

ONLINE ACCESS: Online access to imaged documents requires the use of at least two layers and sometimes three:

• Record Layer: where we identify the original document, as fully as it can be identified from the image itself
• Access Layer: where we identify the website that delivers the images and (often) the specific database through which the images were accessed
• Location Layer (aka “Citing …” Layer): where we report the source information as given by the website—a layer we begin with the words “citing …”

Organization is important in all aspects of research. It’s easy to understand the need for organizing our records so that we (and others) can easily relocate them. Likewise, the organization of our citation details determine whether we (and others) can easily locate a source and—more importantly—whether the essential details are clustered in a way that we understand the meaning of each detail.

The post Citation Tips: Do All Citations Require Layers? By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Technology has complicated the process of citing our sources. With digital images delivered online or through other electronic media, we have two entities to cite: first, the original document and where it is housed; second, the digital provider from whom we obtained the images. 

Citing only the provider is unwise. Websites come and go. URLs develop link rot. Documents disappear at even major websites, amid internal issues of content or publication rights. When we download a document, if our citation does not provide sufficient information about the original record and its archive, we (or users of our work) may not be able to relocate this record to verify the accuracy of what we assert.

On the other hand, citing a digital image to just the archive that holds the original, with no acknowledgment of the image provider, creates problems of its own. If we have not visited the archive and used the original firsthand, it is both risky and unethical to “borrow citations”—to cite an online image as though we used the original. The ethical issue is obvious. The risk occurs because image providers too-often misidentify their records in ways big or small. After all, the humans who guide the processes of digitization, organization, and cataloging are humans. They make mistakes just like we do.  

It is also true that much of the online material we use has been processed in ways that alter the information we want to trust. Documents are often abstracted, transcribed, extracted, or indexed. Whether this processing is done by humans or machine-reading bots, errors occur. Our safeguard in the information-recording process is precision—carefully noting exactly what we use and the origin of each piece of information.

Therefore, our citations to most online materials need three layers, with each layer serving a specific function: 

• record identification—the record that is imaged;
• provider identification—the website and its database that provided the image; and 
• location information for the original, as reported by the provider.

The concept of layered citations has always existed, although it has not been labeled as such. Traditionally, layers have been used in citations to

• manuscripts with complex archival descriptions that require identification of the document, the file, the collection, the series, the record group, etc. Each of these archival levels represents a layer.
• published works that string several sources into the same sentence. Each source represents a layer.

For clarity in both situations, convention dictates that the details describing one layer be separated from the next layer with a semicolon. That piece of punctuation also separates layers within citations to online material.

Do all citations require layers? No. In our next posting, we will guide you through the differences.

The post Citation Tips: What Exactly are Layered Citations & Why Do We Need Them? By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Basic Rule 1: We Cite What We Use

This bit of wisdom is one most of us learn the hard way. Nothing, absolutely nothing, helps to keep a researcher out of trouble more-surely than this.  For example:

• If we use an online index to church records, our citation does not cite the church records because we did not use them. We used someone’s index, and it may or may not have read the names and details correctly. That difference matters.
• If we use a published book called Podunk Vital Records, we cite that book. We don’t cite our source as “Podunk Vital Records, Town Clerk’s Office …,” because we have not used the actual vital records. We used someone’s compilation, which not only could err in the extraction process but, as a source type, often includes hints or assertions gleaned from other sources. 
• If we use William Whoever’s History of Podunk and we find a quote from John Jumpstreet’s diary that the author has cited, we don’t borrow his citation and cite John Jumpstreet’s diary as though we personally read it. Our source is Whoever’s History of Podunk, to which we would add a statement that Whoever’s note xxx cites “John Jumpstreet’s Diary.” 

Basic Rule 2: The Common Knowledge Rule

Any statement of fact that is not common knowledge must carry its own individual statement of source. Distinguishing common knowledge from a statement that needs documenting is mostly a matter of common sense. If we state that the Battle of the Bulge began on 16 December 1944, no citations are needed to attest to the validity of that statement or to help others locate information about the event, because details about the battle are ubiquitous. However, a statement that a certain obscure infantryman was killed by enemy fire in the course of that battle would require a citation to a reliable source.

Basic Rule 3: The Velcro Principle—What’s Meant to Stick Together Should Stick Together

Velcro? Yes. Images of that sticky two-part tape, with hooks on one part and loops on the other, help us with our citations. Modern research is often online research. That usually involves citing two different entities for one piece of information: (1) The original source that provided the information and (2) the website that delivered the image.  For clarity, we usually cite each in a different layer. The Velcro Principle Reminds us that all details belonging to each of them must stick together. Details from one should not be mixed with details from the other. For example:

• An imaged document may display an original page number, while the website’s frame around that image may state an image number. The number of the image created by the website cannot be used in place of the document’s own page number, or vice versa. 
• The title of the website’s database can never be substituted for the record title in the layer that identifies the record. Any user’s effort to find that database title within the original record set would fail, because the website’s database title will not exist within the original record set.

Three simple rules. Using them will change our lives as researchers, preventing a host of problems that we don’t anticipate and can rarely fix easily once they occur.

The post Citation Tips: Three Simple Rules to Guide Us, by Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

The Information Age has created a Catch-22 for historians. Online, we can scour billions of documents from around the world. Images of priceless originals are instantly downloadable to our PCs, laptops, tablets, and phones. Travel to archives, for long slogs through dusty boxes of record bundles tied in faded ribbons, is a fading memory for many researchers and an experience totally unfamiliar to millions of others. 

We do pay a price for this convenience, however.  Those online records are delivered to us through a maze of formats. Many are rearranged in ways that obscure their identity and origin. Others undergo processes that alter their reliability or omit valuable content. Websites themselves are here today and gone tomorrow. Even sites by major archives and commercial providers are revamped so frequently that documents can be difficult to relocate from the URLs, PALs, ARKs, paths, and breadcrumbs we recorded in past online forays.

EE’s new fourth edition tackles these challenges with a fresh approach. Without altering the formats and concepts that have served researchers well since 2007, EE4 introduces 14 universal templates we can use to cite every kind of source, no matter where it is archived or how we access it. Each of this edition’s 1000+ citation examples are keyed to a specific template.

A new tutorial, Building Your Citation, is designed especially for those who are baffled by conventional citations. This new Chapter 3 breaks down the citation process into a simple set of building blocks we can layer as needed for any kind of source worldwide, paper or digital.

In sum, our fourth edition offers:

• expanded emphasis on digitized materials
• expanded international coverage
• updated discussions of all aspects of source citation and analysis
• hundreds of new examples emphasizing modern modes of access, particularly the layered citations that modern media require
• 14 universal templates that replace and simplify the original 170 QuickCheck Models 

If you have been intimidated by complex citations, we hope this new edition and its tutorial will help you overcome the biggest hurdle all researchers face. No, not finding records. The real hurdle is understanding the reliability of what we find and reporting our findings in a manner that is clear to us and others who use our work. 

History is not a collection of raw facts we simply look up and copy down. That is why Evidence Explained differs radically from most citation manuals. Traditional guides emphasize output: the bare essentials needed at publication, to identify sources while minimizing publication costs. Evidence Style citations focus upon input: identifying the information researchers should record in the research stage—not just the basics for an eventual identification of the source but all the details essential to textual criticism, thorough analyses, and sound conclusions.

The post Author Elizabeth Shown Mills Talks About the New Fourth Edition of <i>Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace</i> – By: Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.