Documenting Difficult Cases: A Mixed Method Analysis

Abstract

This Special Issue of Genealogy examines the use of evidence, documentation, and methodology in family history and genealogical studies, and welcomes case studies that examine how to document individuals and relationships. A critical component of scholarly research focusing on the study of particular individuals or groups entails correctly identifying those individuals Historians, genealogists, historical demographers, and scholars in other disciplines sometimes undertake this sort of analysis. Often, research is uncomplicated if the research subject remained in a particular geographical area, or left a clear evidentiary trail, but what happens when historical documents do not clearly identify the research subject? Utilizing a case study approach, this essay employs four different research methods—the chronological study, family reconstitution, community study techniques, and the one-name study—to identify an individual whose correct historical identification was problematic. As such, it establishes a research strategy that can be employed in similar situations.

Genealogical Ethics in the United States and the Popularization of Genealogical Research in the Digital Age

“…More than ever before, the digital platforms available today for researching and sharing information have led to the widespread proliferation of false or misleading information. Researchers, especially lay researchers and online enthusiasts, should always remember that they study past individuals with unique, separate, and discrete identities (Knight 2022). Facts matter.…”

“…Carefully sorting individual identities is a key to successful historical identification and genealogical proofs-so much so, in fact, that many articles in leading peer-reviewed genealogical publications are case studies that explicate that principle by examining particularly instructive cases (as examples, see Strother 1998;Rockett 1998). Successful genealogical proofs may sometimes require years of research and analysis; sometimes, even after this, conclusions may still be tentative (Knight 2022).…”