More Than Just Finding a Name
One of the questions I am often asked about genealogical research is: How do you know that you have got the right person?
It sounds like a simple question, but anyone who has spent time researching a difficult family will know that the answer is rarely straightforward. Finding someone with the right name, in the right place, at roughly the right time is not necessarily enough. Even finding several records that appear to point in the same direction does not automatically prove that they relate to the same person.
This is where the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) becomes so useful.
The GPS provides a framework for assessing the quality of genealogical research. It encourages us to move beyond simply collecting records and towards building conclusions that are reasoned, supported by evidence and capable of being tested by someone else.
What is the Genealogical Proof Standard?
The Genealogical Proof Standard is generally expressed through five elements:
- Conducting a reasonably exhaustive search.
- Providing complete and accurate source citations.
- Analysing and correlating the information gathered.
- Resolving any conflicts in the evidence.
- Reaching a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.
None of these elements is particularly revolutionary on its own. The important thing is how they work together.
The GPS changes the question from:
Have I found a record that says this?
to:
Have I done enough research to demonstrate that this is the most convincing conclusion supported by the available evidence?
That is a much higher standard.
1. Conducting a reasonably exhaustive search
The first requirement is a reasonably exhaustive search.
This does not mean searching every record ever created. That would be impossible for most genealogical problems. Instead, it means identifying the records and sources that could reasonably be expected to contain relevant evidence and searching them appropriately.
This is particularly important when dealing with common names.
If I find a baptism for a John Smith and a marriage for a John Smith, it can be tempting to connect the two because the dates and locations appear to work. But what other John Smiths were living in the area? Are there other possible marriages? Do the occupations, addresses or relationships fit? Is there a burial that provides useful evidence? Are there probate, land, taxation or court records that might distinguish between individuals?
A reasonably exhaustive search is therefore about testing a hypothesis rather than simply confirming it.
This was particularly important in my own research into Cranleigh between about 1550 and 1700. I could not rely on a single class of record to reconstruct the development of the village or identify the people associated with particular properties. Manorial records, deeds, Chancery proceedings, taxation records, wills and parish records each provide different types of evidence.
The value comes partly from bringing those different sources together.
2. Complete and accurate source citations
The second element is often overlooked.
It is not enough to write “found on Ancestry” or “Surrey History Centre records.” A useful citation should allow another researcher to identify the precise source that was used.
That means recording the archive or repository, collection or record series, catalogue reference, document reference and, where appropriate, page or folio number, date and other identifying information.
There is a practical reason for this.
Research is much easier to evaluate when someone else can go back to the original evidence.
In my own research, I have been recording precise references alongside the information extracted from the sources. This means that an entry in my research databases is not simply a statement about a person or property; it is linked to the evidence from which that statement was derived.
Good citation therefore does more than demonstrate where information came from. It creates an audit trail for the research.
3. Analyse and correlate the evidence
This is perhaps the part of the GPS that I find most interesting.
Genealogical research is not simply about collecting facts. It is about interpreting relationships between pieces of evidence.
A single record may tell us very little. Several records, considered together, may tell us considerably more.
For example, a manorial record might identify a tenant and a property. A deed may provide evidence of a transaction involving the same property. A taxation record might place the individual in the village at a particular date, while a will could reveal family relationships.
None of those records necessarily provides the complete answer. But when they are considered together, they can create a much stronger evidential picture.
This is what is meant by correlation.
It is also why databases can be so useful in complex research. Rather than keeping information in isolated notes, I have been organising my Cranleigh research around people, properties, transactions and disputes. This makes it possible to look for connections that might otherwise be missed.
The process becomes less about finding an individual record and more about understanding how the records relate to one another.
4. Resolving conflicts
Of course, different records do not always agree.
Dates vary. Ages are wrong. Names are spelled differently. Relationships are described inconsistently. People appear in two places at once. Property descriptions change. And sometimes two records appear to provide contradictory information.
The answer is not simply to choose the record that fits the theory we already have.
Instead, conflicting evidence needs to be identified, assessed and explained.
Which source is closest to the event? Who provided the information? What was the purpose of the record? Could there be another explanation for the discrepancy?
A later census entry giving an incorrect age, for example, does not necessarily outweigh a contemporary baptismal record. Equally, a carefully drafted legal document may provide stronger evidence for a property transaction than a later summary of that transaction.
This is where source analysis becomes essential.
The GPS encourages us to ask not simply what does the record say? but how much weight should we give to what it says?
5. Reaching a soundly reasoned conclusion
The final stage is to bring everything together.
A genealogical conclusion should be based on the evidence that has been gathered and analysed, rather than on assumption or intuition.
That does not mean that every conclusion has to be absolutely certain. Historical records are incomplete, and sometimes the surviving evidence simply cannot provide a definitive answer.
A sound conclusion might therefore say that the evidence strongly supports a particular identification while acknowledging that some uncertainty remains.
That is not a weakness in the research.
In fact, recognising the limits of the evidence is an important part of good research practice.
The GPS is not just for difficult family trees
It is tempting to think of the Genealogical Proof Standard as something that applies when we are trying to solve a particularly complicated ancestry problem.
But I think it is much more useful than that.
The principles can be applied to almost any genealogical or historical research project.
When researching a house, for example, we should ask whether we have searched the relevant sources, whether our citations allow the evidence to be checked, whether we have correlated information from different records and whether we have considered alternative explanations for changes in ownership or occupation.
The same applies to local history, one-name studies, family reconstruction and even the interpretation of individual documents.
In my own research, applying these principles has helped me think about research as a process of evidence evaluation, rather than simply a process of record discovery.
Finding a record is not the same as proving something
Perhaps the most important lesson is that evidence is not the same thing as proof.
Finding a record that appears to support our theory is only the beginning.
We need to ask:
- What else could this record mean?
- Are there other people who could fit?
- What other records should exist?
- Do independent sources support the identification?
- Are there contradictions?
- Have I recorded exactly where the evidence came from?
- Could another researcher follow my reasoning?
These questions can sometimes make genealogy slower.
But they also make it better.
The Genealogical Proof Standard encourages us to move away from the excitement of finding a record towards the much more satisfying process of building a case from multiple pieces of evidence.
And that is particularly important when researching beyond the familiar territory of parish registers and census returns. Manorial records, deeds, taxation records, court proceedings, probate and other historical sources rarely provide a neat answer on their own. Their real value often emerges only when they are brought together.
For me, that is the real strength of the Genealogical Proof Standard. It is not a set of hurdles designed to make genealogy more complicated. It is a way of making sure that when we say “this is the person”, or “this is the property”, or “this is what happened”, we can explain why.
