I continue to work on the case study paper. It appears to me to be in a “final draft” stage, i.e. that I am happy with most of the content. I have struggled with how to present the information and in what order. As I was walking this morning I decided to outline what I have and see what that might tell me about it’s organization (right or wrong). Part of the issue may be that we only need to present one example of the establishment of a conclusion based on indirect evidence and I am doing two: Eda Mittjus/Muniga = Eda (nee Wienenga) Eckhoff and Eda being the sister of Grietje. That makes it a little tricky.
This is basically the outline right now:
I. Introduction to the problem
II. Background: Grietje Wenenga
IV. Background: Eda Mittjus/Muniga & Eda (nee Wienenga) Eckhoff
V. Naming patterns
VI. Summary of findings and conclusions
It appears to me that I should try to tighten up the outline. What is “naming patterns” doing there? Is it, in fact, analysis? should I start with Eda and “add” Grietje? Within each of these sections there are subsections which would also probably improve if I used this technique to resolve inconsistencies.
what I have done since the last post: I have been working hard on illustrating the comparisons and making the case for why Eda Mittjus/Muniga and Eda (nee Wienenga) Eckhoff are the same person and the sister of my great grandmother. I am still culling information that is not additive to the argument. I have 10 pages so far and expect not to have more than that when I am done.