This is the third of a series of articles about the Genealogical Proof Standard.  The elements are not being published in numerical order, primarily because I had presentations to make on some of the elements, and I completed those first. You can read about GPS #1 (thorough search), GPS #2 (source citations) and GPS #3 (analysis and correlation), by clicking on the links. I haven’t yet published GPS #4 (resolving conflicting evidence).
My ProGen class is in its second month of writing their proof arguments. Proof arguments are the basis of the BCG case study and components of the Kinship Determination Project, both requirements for certification. Proof arguments are a type of genealogical writing that describes, in a scholarly way, our findings to a question.
I won’t dwell on the definition of a proof argument, you can find explanations and examples in a variety of places, including the BCG website (http://www.bcgcertification.org/skillbuilders/worksamples.html). Almost every article in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly is a proof argument.
As our class discussed their first drafts, I started to see some trends in my writing as well as that of my cohort. These observations may reflect a single paper or sometimes the issue is systemic. One thing remains clear–these are my personal comments. Each of the items below is composed of 1.) what I see/experience, 2.) any documentation or analysis which clarifies the issue and finally 3.) a statement of how I plan to approach the issue in my own writing. What you select to incorporate into your proof arguments is a personal decision; your choice may be different than mine.
I pause here for a minute to thank Karen Stanbury, my facilitator for Mastering Genealogical Proof (MGP) by Tom Jones. She made the course, taken in late 2013, rigorous and demanding. I utilize daily the information contained in that book and emphasized by Karen. I know that some facilitators were not as rigorous as Karen and that is their loss.
1. Research Question: The crafting of the research question seems easy at first and then reveals itself to be surprisingly difficult. At times I was struggling with defining exactly what I was trying to “prove.” Did I want to answer when Mary was born, or her location of birth or who were her parents? In the end, for this assignment, I decided to focus on the parents because I had the evidence to support that question.
Analysis: The research question is composed of two parts: a clearly defined and unique individual and a measurable interrogatory. To identify an individual who is “unique in the world,” you must supply enough known descriptors that there is only one person who could satisfy those requirements. The interrogatory may be relationship (e.g. who are the parents of…), or an identity (e.g. Which Alonzo Fedpussle paying taxes in Whichamacallit County in 1879, was the son of Alphonso Fedpussle?) or an activity (e.g. What military service, if any, did Alonzo Fedpussle, born in 1847 in Whichamacallit County, provide in the Civil War?) The interrogatory also needs to be measurable. A question such as “who is John Smith?” fails on two counts. John Smith is not unique in the world but, in addition, the interrogatory “Who was…” is not measurable; said a different way, how would you know if or when the question of “who was John Smith” had been answered?
How I plan to approach it: I believe that I understand the concept of the unique individual but I will continue to work on the crafting of the good question. I am hopeful that writing more PAs will result in more efficient writing. Reading more articles will help as well. I struggle most with research questions that are implied in the writing but not specifically stated.
2. Organization: The organization of the writing is very challenging. It’s not that I cannot organize the writing, but rather I have trouble picking the best organization for the question, the evidence and the reader.
Analysis: I am not sure I see too much written about this. In MGP Dr. Jones describes how the work must have a beginning, a middle and the end (I work with several people who always start conversations “in the middle.” Irritating, isn’t it?) I think this is harder for some people than others. Dr. Jones discusses various constructs for the argument, including single hypothesis, alternative hypotheses, building blocks and syllogisms 
How I plan to approach it: My articles usually use one of these techniques as the prime organizing methodology and then within that structure some or all of the others will be utilized. It sounds like I know what I am doing but it is still hard to pick the right structure for the evidence you have. I’ll probably blog about this more later.
3. Inclusion/Exclusion: We want to include all we know. We worked so hard to get all that information and just because it doesn’t support the research question doesn’t mean we should eliminate it, does it? Well, yes, it does. The focus of the writing should be on the research question and all other material which does not support the thesis should be deleted. On the flip side and equally as “wrong” as too much information, is making the paper so “bare bones” that the author forces the reader to make assumptions and “leaps of faith.” A third type of problem with writing of proof arguments is where the author writes something which “begs the question.” In the latter, the reader is busy wondering why something wasn’t covered; just the inclusion of a brief discussion would have eliminated the alternative focus by the reader.
Analysis: Inclusion of other information which does not directly support the question, leads the reader away from the prime focus; the author appears to have wandered off topic. The reader should also not be making assumptions because the writer has failed to include necessary evidence. This type of writing leaves the reader with questions which interrupt the flow of the reading.
How I plan to approach it: I actually have the problem of putting in too little information and making leaps of faith, under the guise of “isn’t it self-evident?” My writing improves if I have the opportunity to let it sit for a while before rereading. I also write the paper and then outline it after the first draft. I find outlining helps identify errant bits of evidence which do not support the question, but notice — I outline after I have written the draft. If I have difficulty outlining the paper, the area of writing which needs improvement is immediately identified.
4. Proof Argument/Research Plan?: Some in the class wrote the argument as if it were a research plan. This sometimes looked more like a listing of sources which supported the query. The author would include all the evidence in a source list/discussion but never pull it together and correlate by contrasting and comparing. They told the story but seemed more interested in the sources than the proof.
Analysis: The eleven points of MGP continue to guide us in the writing but everyone needs to improve on this. 
How I plan to approach it: I will continue to read NGSQ and study other articles. I admit I was amazed how much I had learned in the past two years by reading and rereading these articles. I am a much better consumer of peer reviewed articles than I was before–it’s a bit scarey!
5. Analysis of sources: Am I the only one who doesn’t want to read about whether that will was original or derivative or the information was primary, secondary or undetermined? The inclusion of source analysis after source analysis which is not additive to the argument makes for difficult reading. The author has the responsibility to provide informative citations which tell the reader the viability of the source that was used; it is not necessary to do the analysis in such a visible way. For all the analysis, the evidence could still be wrong.
Analysis: These citations should make obvious whether the author was looking at an original, derivative or authored work; using primary, secondary or undetermined information and providing direct, indirect or negative evidence. Only when two sources conflict is it reasonable–it seems to me– to expect the author to discuss the quality of the source and then draw a conclusion. The inclusion of that analysis can happen in one of three places– in the body of the proof, in the footnote of the proof and outside of the paper altogether. Authors who analyze every source and include their analysis in the narrative, make for difficult reading. Note the fifth bullet of the 11 in MGP, “We discuss sources to a lesser extent, because most information about sources belongs in the citations and footnotes.” 
How I plan on approach it: I leave out most and sometime all references to the categories of my source, information and evidence. I have a tendency to write about the analysis of the source only when it is in conflict, i.e. does the source analysis make one answer more appropriate than another?
6. Style of writing: Some authors wrote a portion of their article in a very familiar style- first person, present tense.
Analysis: The third bullet of the 11 points in MGP states “present-tense verbs refer to extant sources and living people….(consequently, much genealogical writing is in the past tense.) and the tenth bullet “the tone of a proof argument or summary is that of a “defense” in the academic sense.” 
How I plan to to approach it: I have little difficulty using past tense fairly consistently in my writing but occasionally, a present tense verb sneaks in. I just have to be aware of the issue and address it at the time of writing. Generally, my writing is rather academic (read: dry) so the use of the first person does not often enter my writing.
So this was, and continues to be, a great exercise. I have written a few proof arguments now and although I cannot say I am comfortable, the efficiency of writing is better and my initial output is stronger.
What I have done since the last posting: commented on my classmates proof arguments; got the SGS newsletter out to our membership; campaigned to have our society join FGS; purchased, received and deeply skimmed Applied Genealogy by Eugene A. Stratton and Genealogical Evidence by Noel Stevenson. Both are older books but are still the go-to reference for genealogy fundamentals. Also read the ProGen assignment for next month and 4 NGSQ articles (one is related to my BCG case study, one was written by a friend, one is the Q study article for March and one is about a special schedule of the 1880 census where a great grand uncle was enumerated as he was labeled insane. More about this later—I am doing some deep research on the topic of incarceration in an insane asylum in the late 1800′s.)
 Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards (Nashville: Turner Publishing Company, 2014) p. 1-2.
 Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof (Arlington, VA: National Genealogical Society, 2013).
 Ibid, p. 88-89.
 Ibid, p. 90.