Using OneNote in the Genealogical Process

Awhile ago, I blogged about my notetaking choice between Evernote and OneNote. Both are popular notetaking programs for genealogy, but I finally chose OneNote. It fits my organization style better than Evernote. Here's how I'm using it after reading Mastering Genealogical Proof by Thomas W. Jones.

I chose to create a notebook for each ancestral surname and one for collateral surnames, including the additional maiden names from my ancestral lines. I also added specialized notebooks for my study groups and a general notebook for webinar notes, location studies, or foreign language tips, or anything else that strikes my fancy.

 

This notebook template isn't my own creation; I found it on the Internet sometime ago, but I can't remember where. If someone recognizes this, please let me know so I can give proper credit to the creator!

 

 

When a notebook is opened, there are tabs arranged across the top, called sections. These are like the dividers in a physical binder. They can be named however one desires and any number of notebooks can be created. The tab on the end with the elipses (...) indicates that there are several more sections hidden; clicking the triangle opens a dropdown menu with the names of the hidden sections.

 

 

 

 

Down the right side are the pages in the highlighted section. Pictured to the right are the pages in my research plan section. Each ancestor has a main page, on which I keep a research checklist, with several subpages beneath, each containing a research plan for a particular event in that ancestor's life. Any number of pages or subpages can be created can be created. Since Albert Herman has two marriages, a sub-subpage can be created for the former marriage, if desired.

Although I'd love to take credit for this research plan, this template is a modification of one that I found on the Internet some time ago. Again, I cannot remember where I found it or who to credit.

The research plan starts with a research question and then a list of all the facts--where it came from and who the informant was. A working hypothesis is crafted and a list of potential sources is created. From this source list, a research strategy is developed listing the order in which to search them. This order is likely to change as information is discovered and new sources are found.

 

 

 

 

 

Next is the research log in which the sources searched are recorded as they are used. If there are positive results to the search, any items scanned, copied or saved are recorded and then given a document name, which is also recorded here. If there is nothing found, this is also recorded since it might be used as negative evidence at some point.

This is also the time to record the citation while the source is still handy so there are no missing pieces to search for later.

Once all the citations are completed, a preliminary analysis of the source is done, recording the type of source and its provenance. This is information that can be cut and pasted to be used in other programs.

 

Each piece of information is briefly noted and analyzed, the informant recorded, and the evidence is labeled as direct, indirect or negative.

After the preliminary analysis is completed, any potential conflicts are recorded with ideas on how they might be resolved. This is where to note ideas about correlating the evidence and the best way to present it. Finally, a conclusion is drafted...

 

...and the cycle begins again as more questions emerge.

 

So far, I'm really liking this research plan template. It's been a great place to capture my thoughts and record my research all in one place. One thing I do want to point out is that this is only one section of my whole research notebook. When I add digital images of my records, which I can then hyperlink to webpages, notes in other sections, or to other computer files, I will never lose a piece of information again. But that's best left for a blog post for another time.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Ragu Challenge: 3-2-1 Cite

Dear Myrtle (http://blog.dearmyrtle.com/2014/04/the-ragu-challenge-3-2-1-cite.html) issued a challenge designed to encourage genealogists to realize that "we are bigger than our genealogy programs." Instead of habitually plugging data into our programs, the challenge encourages us to use put the concepts we've been learning in Mastering Genealogical Proofs into practice. She calls it the Ragu Challenge: 3-2-1 Cite. Use 3 documents, write 2 paragraphs (at minimum), and tell about 1 event, citing our sources. Ragu because "it's in there." What follows is my attempt at this challenge.
I never met my grandfather, who died when my father was a child. Family lore says he was an orphan born in Brooklyn who lied about his age to join the Navy, and had an older sister, Helen Carman, who lived in California, now deceased. My research challenges some of those assumptions, but supports the basic facts and answers the research question, When and where was the birth of Albert H. Pastoor, who was living in Peekskill, New York, in 1940? Who were his parents?
Although more documents and paragraphs will be required to fully answer my research question, to meet this challenge, I've decided to use the following three documents:
1. The U.S. Navy personnel records for Albert Herman Pastoor;

Compiled service record, Albert H. Pastoor personnel file, service no. 1521327, (discharged 1921); Official Military Personnel Files, World War I; Enlisted Personnel, 1885 - 1951, United States Navy; National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis; photocopies supplied by Center without citation. Above photo, from the service record, is the affidavit of Mrs. Helen Pastoor Carman, sister to Albert Herman Pastoor.

2. The marriage certificate of Albert Pastoor and Margaret Westerman;

New York Borough of Brooklyn, New York City Department of Health, marriage certificate 15863 (1920), Pastoor-Westerman; Municipal Archives, New York City.
3. The birth certificate of Andrew Pastor;

Borough of Brooklyn, New York, birth certificate no. 1312 (1898), Andrew Pastor [Albert Pastoor]; Municipal Archives, New York City.
All three documents are original records. The Navy personnel records contain Albert's original enlistment papers of 7 Jun 1915. His sister, Mrs. Helen Pastoor Carman, signed an affadavit stating she was his sister and guardian and that Albert H. Pastoor was born 30 Jan 1898 in Brooklyn, New York. Elsewhere in the document, the names of his parents were listed as unknown. Although the information here is primary, meaning it is eyewitness information, I use it guardedly; Helen was older and likely present at her brother's birth, but she would have been very young and her information would therefore be questionable. However, the fact that it is a notarized affidavit, sworn to before the United States Navy officer performing the oath, gives it a bit more weight. This document provides direct evidence of the birth of Albert Pastoor.
The second document, the marriage license and certificate, is dated 17 Nov 1920. Albert H. Pastoor and Margaret Westerman were married in Borough Hall in Brooklyn by the deputy city clerk. Although the clerk officiated the ceremony, Albert is likely the informant, making the marriage information primary; but his birth information is secondary since he couldn't have been an eyewitness at his own birth. However, the information agrees with that on the Navy records. This document also names his parents as Albert [the surname Pastoor is implied] and Anna Kolb. His sister, Mrs. Helen Carman, is a witness to the marriage. This document provides direct evidence of the birth of Albert Pastoor.
The third document, the birth record, at first glance appears to be unrelated because of the different given name of Andrew instead of Albert. However, Andrew "Pastor" is the third child born to Anna Kolb on 30 Jan 1898 in Brooklyn, NY. Albert "Pastor" is named as the father. The date and location of birth, as well as the names and ages of the parents agrees with that given on the marriage license. The physician who attended the birth signed the certificate as the informant, presumably with information given to him by the mother and/or the father, making it eyewitness information or primary information about the birth.
There is an obvious conflict with the given name of this child. Further research (beyond the scope of this challenge) has revealed that the parents, Albert "Passtoor" and Anna Kolb, had a daughter who was born and died in childhood. She was born before Helen, which is in agreement for Albert (aka Andrew) as the third child named on the birth certificate. The 1900 census information (see below) for the Albert Pastor household, living at the same address as that of the 1898 birth record, is also in agreement concerning the name and date of birth of Albert (son), the names of his parents, and the number of childen born to the mother. No other candidate for Andrew Pastor has been found. This birth record provides direct evidence of the birth of Albert Pastoor, aka Andrew Pastor. (The conflict in the 1900 census of the given name for Helen as Engalena has been resolved and is for another challenge.)

1900 U.S. census, Kings, New York, population schedule, New York City, Borough of Brooklyn, enumeration district (ED) 166, sheet 15A, p. 190 (recto), dwelling 89, family 289, Albert Pastor household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 6 Nov 2013); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T623, roll 1,050.

All documents are in agreement with the birth date and location of Albert Pastoor. Although his enlistment papers state that the parents are unknown, the other two documents naming the parents are in agreement. It may be that in the enlistment papers, Albert and Helen omitted the names of their parents for personal reasons. Reseach has revealed that their mother had died six months before Albert joined the Navy, and their father had died four years earlier in an institution, under what would be considered shameful circumstances at the time. They likely did not want to reveal such personal information so soon. Since they obviously knew the names of their parents (as shown on the 1920 marriage certificate), it calls into question the reliability of the Navy affadavit despite the agreement of its information.
The conflict regarding Albert's given name is more of a mystery. It is possible that the name was recorded incorrectly on the birth record because of a misunderstanding (German was their native language) or it is just as likely that they decided to call him after his father and neglected to change the name on the birth record. I think the fact that my grandfather used the same given name as the father named on the birth record and marriage record lends credibility to the idea that he was named after his father.

Posted with Blogsy

2014 First Quarter Checkpoint

Earlier in the year, I came across a blog by Janine Adams called Organize Your Family History, in which she mentioned how she decided to break the year into quarters and research one branch of her family each quarter. I thought her idea was wonderful so I incorporated her ideas into my research goals for the new year. Now that the first quarter is over, I'm reviewing my progress.

I decided to research my mother's side of the family first since both of my grandparents were Polish and I didn't know much about their families. I created a notebook in OneNote for the two surnames of interest, Chrzanowski and Dabrowski. I've decided to keep separate correspondence logs for each surname, so the first thing I did was create a log and start collecting vital records. Then I decided to use the notebook system to file my hard copies using the marriage record identification numbers, or MRIN, generated by my Legacy program. The scanned copies are filed in a surname folder on my computer after I add the citations electronically to them and then I link them to the appropriate citations in my Legacy program. I'm trying to decide if I want to create a virtual notebook in OneNote like my hard copy notebook where I would store my photos, scanned documents and research notes.

In focusing only on my Polish branches this quarter, I was able to make lots of progress. I've received all the vital records available for everyone, except for two. Since my great-grandmother, Stanislawa (Makowski) Chrzanowski, died in 1981, her death is too recent for state law to allow me to get her death certificate. I am also unable to find the marriage record for my Dabrowski great-grandparents, who were supposedly married in Connecticut. Their first three children were born there, so I suspect they were married there, though I need to consider they could have been married before they arrived in the United States. I did find ship manifests for my both my Chrzanowski great-grandparents, and also for my grandmother, Genowefa "Jean" Dabrowski, but so far the Dabrowski's remain mostly elusive.

I split my time between research, organizing my files and entering data into Legacy. I now have a research plan for each direct ancestor, complete with research questions--something I never wrote down before. Each direct ancestor also has a biography (their story so far) and a research log in the research notes section of the Legacy program.

In addition to working my genealogy files, my other genealogy goal was continuing education. For the past 10 weeks, I've been part of a study group working our way through Mastering Genealogical Proof. This has been a great complement to this year's genealogy goals because I'm incorporating what I'm learning into my genealogy research. As I obtain a new document, I spend some time analyzing it. Each ancestor's research notes has information about the record: whether it is an original or derivative, whether the information is primary, secondary or indeterminate, and whether it is direct, indirect or negative evidence. I then write about my observations and my opinion about it. I also enter them into a new program, Evidentia, which will eventually help me write my proof summaries and proof arguments.

I am grateful to Janine Adams for her wonderful idea. It has really transformed my genealogy research. I feel on top of my research and I've made enormous progress in just one quarter. Just knowing that I will get to the other family branches helps me focus on my current tasks. While I still have some odds and ends to do on my Polish family, I'm tucking them away and moving on to my father's paternal side, those elusive Germans. With this system, I know that those odds and ends won't be lost; I will be returning to them next year.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Genealogy Lessons Learned

As a self-taught genealogist, everything I’ve learned, I learned through trial and error in bits and pieces. Citing my sources became more of a habit after learning about and reading Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills. But analyzing sources?  Wasn’t I analyzing a document when I decided if it belonged to my ancestor or not? I didn’t even know what I didn’t know! So I decided to become a participant in a study group for the book, Mastering Genealogical Proof by Thomas W. Jones.

In the last couple of years, I had been toying with the idea of becoming a certified genealogist. For years, I’ve been dabbling in family history research, but I began to realize my research was not up to professional standards. This study group seemed like a good idea. Let me tell you, it’s kicking my butt. I thought I understood original and derivative records; primary and secondary information; and direct and indirect evidence. Working through the exercises in this book has shown me how little I understand these concepts. So, in order to keep them front and center in my mind, I decided to blog about what I’m learning. These are not my ideas–they are the result of knowledge gained through reading Mastering Genealogical Proof by Thomas W. Jones.

One of the notions I’ve learned is the importance of framing my research through appropriate questions. While I sort of had questions about my ancestors like, “Who was Jacob’s father?” “Were these people his siblings?” “Where was he living in 1880?” I never formally wrote them down. These kinds of questions point me toward sources where I might find answers and information that will lead to evidence. The questions need to be framed about a person whom I already have known or “documented” information about and then ask questions about their relationships, identity, and activities. The questions I’ve asked about my ancestors seem right on target, but I don’t write them down or make sure they are about a documented person.

The sources I consult are also an important part of my research. Sources can be original (those created at the time of an event) or derivative (those created based on other records). Original records are usually more credible and the records I strive to find. A new thought for me was that indexes and databases are not considered sources because they are finding aids that help locate sources.

Sources contain information that is either primary (first-person account) or secondary (hearsay). They can also be indeterminable which means I have no idea who gave the information. Of course, I really want information that is primary, but sometimes I have to settle for secondary. My great-grandfather’s death certificate gives me primary information about his death. Presumably his niece, who was the informant, handled the funeral arrangements and knew about his death, as well as the physician who attended him. But the birth information contained on that certificate is not primary information because his niece wasn’t there when her uncle was born. She only knew about it because he told her when to celebrate his birthday. And his death certificate reflects that because she didn’t know exactly the year he was born or how old he was. Even though this is secondary information, it does give me clues about his birth and helps narrow my research field.

And then there is the evidence that is either direct, indirect, or negative, which is where my research question comes into play. In the case of my great-grandfather’s birth, his death certificate is an original record that contains secondary information, but it directly answers the question of when and where he was born, so it is direct evidence of his birth. Evidence is not something I can touch or see; it is something I create in my mind based upon my interpretation of the information in a source. What a new thought! In the past, I would have considered my great-grandfather’s death certificate as evidence.

So how will studying this chapter change my research? Well, for starters, I’m going back to my grandparents and making sure I have all my information backed up by actual original sources and not just the word of my parents. I will begin with appropriate questions and start analyzing the sources I have. As difficult as I’ve found this chapter, I’m excited to be expanding my knowledge and applying it directly to my research. If you want to bring your genealogy up a notch, I strongly encourage you to delve into this book. It will change your research.