Facts and Foibles of Gelealogy Research - Misconceptions of Amateur Genealogy Researchers

A paper read at the Genealogy Session of the Twenty-fifth Annual History Conference, December 11, 1943, at Indianapolis.

by JOSEPH C. WOLF

Two years ago I had the privilege and pleasure of talking to this group on the "Tools and Techniques of Genealogical Research."2 My paper at that time was rather general and was composed' partly of directions to the beginner and the somewhat advanced amateur, and partly of hints which I hoped would be useful to the more experienced researcher. However, my closing remarks-the last six sentences, in fact were a plea for accuracy, a demand that the genealogist test and verify every note, every reference, every scrap of information discovered by him before admitting it to serious consideration in his work.

In the two years that have elapsed since that plea, I have seen a good many so-called genealogists at work, and I have used a great many so-called family histories and genealogical compilations of various kinds, and I have decided that the few sentences of warning with which I closed that paper were perhaps the most important words I uttered that day.

It is, I am afraid, a sad but indisputable fact that most genealogical research being carried on today in this library and in every other library in the country is inaccurate, slipshod, and, in many instances, consciously or unconsciously perverted from the truth to serve the researchers' own ends.

This is in part because the activity is being carried on by workers who are untrained in the science of research, but it also is largely due to the fact that perhaps ninety percent of the books used by these seekers after family history contain factual errors, false assumptions, and reckless reasoning.

In other words, we have a field of study in which the research materials are both reliable and unreliable. Unfortunately, there are more unreliable sources than in any other field, while at the same time the workers using those materials have had less training in critical research procedure than workers in other branches of study. Given such a situation, nothing can result but a constant multiplication of
errors and a constant decline in the reputation of genealogy and genealogists.

It certainly is not my purpose to condemn all amateur genealogy. There are many competent amateurs and there are many incompetent professionals. Nevertheless it is true, I think, that the truly valuable and reliable works in this field are almost entirely the work of the skilled professional.

But we cannot overlook the work of the skilled amateur, or even the conscientious unskilled amateur. Both make important contributions, if it is only to provide clues to the trained worker, and even the work of the most uncritical beginner is likely to be found accurate in the recent generations.

The solution, perhaps, is to discourage the incompetents, the mere seekers after reflected glory, the social climbers, and those who want a coat-of-arms because it will look handsome as a decoration over their mantel. Once these pathetic folk and the prfessionals who cater to them have been weeded out, we must proceed to educate the remaining serious workers to a proper appreciation of the complex nature and actual science of genealogical research. We must point out to them the qualifications for professional work, the strict disciplines and techniques that must be developed, and the unfailing regard for the proven fact which must be the touchstone of all their efforts. Not until such weeding out and such education has taken place can the defenders of genealogical research be respected as the science it really is.