The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) was developed by the Board of Certification for Genealogists in the US.  It is a great methodology to help you with the Genealogist’s Job.  It follows through the 3 keys aspects of the Genealogist’s Job – sources, evidence and conclusions.  This is my take on the 5 steps which make it up:

1 – Exhaustive Research

Reasonably exhaustive research has been conducted.

Have you done all the research you can?

And equally importantly, are you aware when you haven’t?!  This is the most important aspect in my opinion because a lot of the time, you don’t know when you’ve done enough, but you do know when you’ve not.

Case Study

Jasper Pyne O’Callaghan was known to be a member of the Canterbury Yeomanry Cavalry (CYC) from family story and the GR MacDonald Dictionary of Canterbury Biography.

His brother Thomas Robert O’Callaghan was known to be a member of the CYC from a funeral notice dated 8 June 1874.

Both brothers arrived together on the Chrysolite in 1861, but neither married until 1872.

Is this enough research to prove they were in the CYC at the same time?

No.

Exhaustive research would entail finding the records for the CYC, which are held at Archives NZ in Wellington.

Capitation rolls for the CYC show that Thomas joined on 13 December 1873.  Jasper joined on 27 June 1874 – after his brother’s death.

Note: as Jasper left no diaries we can make no assumptions about why he joined the CYC after his brother’s death

2 – Sources

Each statement of fact has a complete and accurate source citation.

Sources fall into 2 broad categories:
1. Original documents (or digital/photo copies)

• Primary
  • Contemporary

• Secondary
  • Written later
  • May include analysis
  • Good ones will include list of Primary sources

2. Transcripts

• • All indexes are transcripts because the original documents were on paper, not on the computer
  • You should always try and find the original version of a transcript to check that it has been transcribed correctly and you are getting the correct information out of it!

Write down where you got your sources from so you can find them again.  The level of detail is up to you.

If you don’t write down where your sources came from you can waste time looking for records again and also waste money getting records you already have.

3 – Tests

The evidence is reliable and has been skillfully correlated and interpreted.

When taken as a whole, does all the information you’ve collected make sense?  Have you done enough research?

Case study

– taken from an online family tree

Thomas Blythe is born in Woolwich, Kent, England where he married and has some children.

Thomas commits a crime in Warwickshire, England and is transported to Tasmania without his family.

In Tasmania, he marries a second wife and proceeds to have children with both wives

– at the same time!

Does this make sense?

No.  There will be more than one Thomas Blythe born in England around the time of these events.  Only being able to find one means you need to do more research.

So take a step back and make sure all the evidence you’ve collected line up.  Has someone married aged 2?  Have they died before their parents were born?

Think of it as a picture.  Is it clear?  Or is it fuzzy?  If it’s fuzzy, you need to do some more research!

4 – Resolve Conflicting information

Any contradictory evidence has been resolved.

Most conflicting information is conflicting because it’s wrong.  So usually it is dismissed as part of the research process.  (You should note, if there is more than one person of the same name, why you chose the one you did).

Conflicting information that isn’t wrong is usually for these reasons:

• • • recorded incorrectly
    • mistake
    • lie

Ask yourself, how reliable is the source of the information?  Some sources are less reliable than others.

You should also ask yourself if the conflicting information exists because you haven’t done enough research.  It’s easy to give explanations based on assumptions because you don’t have the records to give an accurate explanation.  If your assumptions don’t hold up, then your conflicting information could be pointing you in the wrong direction.

Case Study

My 3xGt Grandfather William E Wilson was believed to have died in Pennsylvania in 1859 – he is referred to as “late of Cressona” and his daughter Emily seemed to believe it.  There’s a lovely gravestone with the date on it.

In Ireland.

The explanation was always that this was a memorial.

No death information could be found in Pennsylvania – death certificates don’t start there until 1906.  Prior to that records are very sketchy.  And no real search was ever made for burial records in Ireland, despite the gravestone.

The explanation held until, while looking for other members of the family I found a newspaper death notice for William:

March 19, at the residence of his brothers, in Magherafelt, where he had arrived a few days previously from America, Mr. Wm. E Wilson, late of Cressona, Pennsylvania, youngest son of the late Rev. John Wilson, of Lecumpher.

Belfast Morning News – March 24, 1859

So he is buried in that grave.

Where did we go wrong?  His daughter Emily was 5 when her father died and memory is an interesting thing.  Our interpretation of “late of Cressona” was never contradicted by her.  On the up side, this did lead me to discover how Emily got to Ireland to be married in 1872!

5 – Write your conclusions

You won’t remember how you came to your conclusion(s) – write them down!

This is not the story of your family, but how you came to your conclusion.  It’s especially important to do it when you have a complicated set of circumstantial evidence.

Summary of the GPS

Element of the GPS		Contribution to Credibility	Ask yourself
1	Reasonably exhaustive research	· Assumes examination of a wide range of high quality sources · Minimizes the probability that undiscovered evidence will overturn a too-hasty conclusion	Have you done all the research you can? Are you aware that you haven’t?
2	Complete, accurate citations to the source or sources of each information item	· Demonstrates the extent of the search and the quality of the sources · Allows others to replicate the steps taken to reach the conclusion. (Inability to replicate the research casts doubt on the conclusion.)	Do you have proof to support your research? Have you written down where the proof came from?
3	Tests—through processes of analysis and correlation—of all sources, information items, and evidence	· Facilitates sound interpretation of the data contributed by each source · Ensures that the conclusion reflects all the evidence	Does it make sense? (when all put together)
4	Resolution of conflicts among evidence items	· Substantiates the conclusion’s credibility. (If conflicting evidence is not resolved, a credible conclusion is not possible.)	Can you explain the parts that don’t make sense? How reliable is the source?
5	Soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.	· Eliminates the possibility that the conclusion is based on bias, preconception, or inadequate appreciation of the evidence · Explains how the evidence led to the conclusion	Have you written down how you got to your conclusions?????

If you prefer a visual version, there’s a great flow chart available on the Genealogy Explained website.