Steve's Genealogy Blog

When does the use of The Scientific Method to conduct genealogical research fail to meet the Genealogical Proof Standard?

1. Define the question:  When was Bronislawa (Bertha) Danko born?
2. Gather information and resources:  Family members recall that Bronislawa (Bertha) Danko was born sometime around 1910-1915 in Worcester, Massachusetts.
3. Form hypothesis:  Bronislawa (Bertha) Danko was born around 1910-1915.
4. Perform experiment and collect data:  Search the birth records in the Massachusetts State Archives for Bronislawa (Bertha) Danko’s birth record.
5. Analyze data:  Bronislawa Danko’s birth record was found in the Massachusetts State Archives and her date of birth was recorded as January 3, 1912.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions:  Bronislawa Danko was born on January 3, 1912.
7. Publish results:  This information was communicated to family members and published on my blog.
8. Retest:  To my knowledge, no retest has yet been performed.

The Scientific Method provided the answer to the question of when was Bronislawa (Bertha) Danko born .  This single iteration of The Scientific Method does not, however, satisfy the Genealogical Proof Standard because it does not include a reasonably exhaustive search and it does not resolve conflicting evidence.

Do other records agree with the date recorded in the records at the Massachusetts State Archives?  Bronislawa was probably baptized .  What is the date of birth on the baptismal record?  Does Bronislawa’s age at the time of her death agree with the date of her birth?  Was Bronislawa’s date of birth recorded in a birth announcement or obituary?  What other possible sources for Bronislawa’s date of birth might exist?

Bronislawa’s death certificate reported that she was born on January 2, 1912, not January 3, 1912 .  Which date is correct?

There are clearly more questions to answer here and more research to conduct before we can say that the Genealogical Proof Standard has been satisfied when stating that Bronislawa Danko was born on January 3, 1912.

The shortcomings of The Scientific Method may be remedied by posing new hypotheses such as:

• Bronislawa (Bertha) Danko’s date of birth is included in her baptismal record or
• Bronislawa (Bertha) Danko’s date of birth is mentioned in a birth announcement,

and by attempting to resolve the conflicting evidence.

The Scientific Method can help answer genealogical questions, but the researcher must still ensure that the conclusions drawn from The Scientific Method meet the Genealogical Proof Standard.

or other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko

As I have shown in the previous six installments of this series, The Scientific Method can be used to help answer genealogical questions .  The Scientific Method provides a logical framework to answer questions that can be addressed with a testable hypothesis .  Although the steps or stages of the scientific method, a summary of the steps that works well when attempting to answer a genealogical question includes the following steps:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions (that may serve as a starting point for new hypothesis)
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by others)

But, don’t genealogists already have a standard for genealogical research?  Isn’t the Genealogical Proof Standard the genealogist’s equivalent of The Scientific Method?

The Genealogical Proof Standard includes four elements:

• a reasonably exhaustive search;
• complete and accurate source citations;
• analysis and correlation of the collected information;
• resolution of any conflicting evidence; and
• a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.

The Genealogical Proof Standard provides four elements that must be met in order to establish that a genealogical conclusion has been proved but does not provide a framework or plan on how to reach a conclusion .  The Scientific Method, on the other hand, does provide a logical sequence of steps that help the genealogist reach a conclusion and can also help satisfy the four elements of the Genealogical Proof Standard.

The genealogist does not need to use The Scientific Method in order to satisfy the four elements of the Genealogical Proof Standard but, in many situations, The Scientific Method can help the genealogist reach a soundly reasoned conclusion that includes analysis and correlation of the collected information and resolution of conflicting evidence.

I imagine that many genealogists follow The Scientific Method when trying to answer a genealogical question without even realizing it, mainly because genealogists don’t generally think about forming a hypothesis and performing an experiment .  Nonetheless, when a genealogist has a hunch about the answer to a genealogical question, he/she is forming a hypothesis, and when the genealogist searches a certain group of records, he/she is conducting an experiment.

However, The Scientific Method does not produce proof, but instead generates evidence, positive and negative, to support or refute the hypothesis .  In general, hypotheses cannot be proven, but can be disproven .  Furthermore, The Scientific Method by itself does not necessarily satisfy the Genealogical Proof Standard.

In Part 8 of this series I will examine some cases when The Scientific Method does not satisfy the Genealogical Proof Standard.

or other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko

My cousin and I used The Scientific Method to answer our initial question:  Where is Bertha Danko buried? Our first hypothesis was that Bertha Danko is buried in an unmarked grave in Hope Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts .  Our second hypothesis was that Bertha’s death record includes her place of burial .  Our third hypothesis was that the location of Bertha’s grave is mentioned in the records of her undertaker, Lucian Karolkiewicz .  Our fourth hypothesis was that Bronislawa was buried at Notre Dame Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts .  We could not find evidence to support any of these hypotheses, although we could disprove only the second hypotheses .  One or more of the other three hypotheses could still be correct.

The fifth hypothesis was proposed and tested by the staff at Notre Dame Cemetery.

5-2. Gather information and resources:  The information in the Notre Dame Cemetery database for the 1910-1915 time period was manually recorded in ledgers .  Subsequently, the information was transcribed into an electronic database.
5-3. Form new hypothesis:  Bronislawa / Bertha Danko’s name is misspelled in the Notre Dame Cemetery database.
5-4. Perform experiment and collect data:  The staff at Notre Dame Cemetery searched the database for similar and misspelled names.
5-5. Analyze the data:  A record for Bronislawa Danka (surname misspelled) was found in the Notre Dame Cemetery database.
5-5. Interpret data and draw conclusions:  Bronislawa Danko was buried 15 Jan 1913 in Notre Dame Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts in Sec-3 Lot-1464 Grv-1B .  She was 1 year old at the time of burial .  The information on this child matches that of Bronislawa’s death record, so this is the correct child.
5-7. Publish results:  The location of Bronislawa’s grave was communicated to family members and a monument was erected by the family on the grave site .  The information was also published on my blog and was also published on Find A Grave.

To summarize, my cousin and I had a question and we gathered the available information .  We formed a hypothesis and tested the hypothesis .  We analyzed the data and drew conclusions .  We developed new hypotheses and repeated the stages of The Scientific Method until we were successful in answering the initial question .  The process disproved the initial hypothesis that Bertha Danko is buried in an unmarked grave in Hope Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts.

It is possible that our final conclusion that Bronislawa / Bertha Danko is buried in Notre Dame Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts in Sec-3 Lot-1464 Grv-1B is incorrect .  If any evidence surfaces that the child in this grave is not the correct child, or that the correct child is buried elsewhere, we will generate and test a new hypothesis.

This discussion provides an example of how The Scientific Method can provide a logical, stepwise process to answer a genealogical question, and is very similar to the way that genealogists work, anyway.

In Part 7, I will discuss how The Scientific Method can help satisfy the requirements of The Genealogical Proof Standard.

For other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko

While using The Scientific Method to answer the question of where Bertha Danko is buried, my cousin and I tested our first hypothesis that Bertha Danko is buried in an unmarked grave in Hope Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts .  We then tested a second hypothesis that Bertha’s death record includes her place of burial .  We proceeded to develop and test a third hypothesis that the location of Bertha’s grave is mentioned in the records of her undertaker, Lucian Karolkiewicz.

After failure to obtain any evidence to support the first three hypotheses, we proceeded to develop a fourth hypothesis .  The fourth hypothesis, in fact, was developed by the staff at the Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service in Worcester, Massachusetts.

4-2. Gather information and resources:  The staff at Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service indicated that most Polish people in Worcester, Massachusetts during the 1910-1915 time period were buried in Notre Dame Cemetery of that same city.
4-3. Form new hypothesis:  Bronislawa was buried at Notre Dame Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts
4-4. Perform experiment and collect data:  The staff of the Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service contacted Notre Dame Cemetery and requested that the cemetery staff search for the burial records of Bronislawa / Bertha Danko.
4-5. Analyze the data:  No burial record for Bronislawa Danko or Bertha Danko was found in the Notre Dame Cemetery records.
4-6. Interpret data and draw conclusions:  The staff at the Notre Dame Cemetery had searched their electronic database, using only the names provided to them .  The electronic database was generated from paper records and there is the possibility that the record for Bronislawa Danko was omitted or misspelled during transfer to the electronic database.

As with the first three hypotheses, we could find no evidence to support the fourth hypothesis .  Even so, we have not disproved any hypothesis except the second, that Bertha Danko’s death record includes her place of burial.

In Part 6 of this series, I will discuss how the staff at the Notre Dame Cemetery proposed and tested the fifth hypothesis.

For other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko

My cousin and I attempted to use The Scientific Method to answer the question of where Bertha Danko is buried .  In the first iteration of The Scientific Method, we tested the hypothesis that Bertha Danko is buried in an unmarked grave in Hope Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts .  We were not able to prove the first hypothesis, and so we conducted a second iteration where we tested the hypothesis that Bertha’s death record includes her place of burial .  We were not able to prove the second hypothesis, but we learned that Bertha Danko’s name was actually Bronislawa Danko, and that Bronislawa was buried by the undertaker Lucian Karolkiewicz.

Now, many Danko family members in Worcester, Massachusetts were buried by Henry Karolkiewicz who probably inherited the funeral home from Lucian Karolkiewicz.

3-2 .  Gather information and resources:  Lucian Karolkiewicz’s records were probably inherited by Henry Karolkiewicz .  Henry Karolkiewicz’s funeral business was later sold to the Dirsa family who formed the Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service.
3-3 .  Form new hypothesis:  Lucian Karolkiewicz’s records include the place of Bronislawa’s burial.
3-4.  Perform experiment and collect data:  Contact the Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service in Worcester, Massachusetts and request information on the burial of Bronislawa Danko.
3-5 .  Analyze the data:  Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service does not have Lucian Karolkiewicz’s records for that time period.
3-6 .  Interpret data and draw conclusions:  Lucian Karolkiewicz’s records for that time period were probably not transferred to the Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service .  However, Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service may be able to suggest other ways to find where Bronislawa Danko was buried.

Once again we seem to have struck out in our efforts to find Bronislawa Danko’s grave, but as long as we can develop a new hypothesis, we can conduct another iteration of The Scientific Method .  Frequently, the conclusions drawn from one iteration will lend themselves to the formation of a new hypothesis.

In Part 5 of this series, I will discuss how the staff at the Henry-Dirsa Funeral Service developed a new hypothesis for the next iteration of The Scientific Method.

For other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko

My cousin and I attempted to use The Scientific Method to answer the question of where Bertha Danko is buried .  At the end of the first iteration of The Scientific Method where we tested the hypothesis that Bertha Danko is buried in an unmarked grave in Hope Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts, we concluded that either Bertha Danko is not buried in Hope Cemetery, there is an error or omission in the cemetery records, or the clerk at the cemetery did not conduct an accurate and thorough search.

Undaunted (or perhaps mostly undaunted), we prepared to engage in another iteration of The Scientific Method .  Realizing that there are other sources of information that may mention the location of Bertha’s burial, we returned to Step 2, Gather information and resources .  In the following summary, I have preceded the number of each step in The Scientific Method with the number 2, in order to indicate that this is the second iteration of The Scientific Method.

2-2 .  Gather information and resources:  The location of Bertha’s burial may be included in her death record .  Death records exist for the 1910-1915 time period in Massachusetts and are located in the Massachusetts State Archives.
2-3 .  Form new hypothesis:  Bertha’s death record includes her place of burial.
2-4 .  Perform experiment and collect data:  Go to the Massachusetts State Archives and search for Bertha’s death record.
2-5 .  Analyze data:  Bertha’s death record was found under the name Bronislawa Danko.
2-6 .  Interpret data and draw conclusions:  Bronislawa’s death record does not reveal her place of burial, but states, among other things, that she was 1 year 11 days old at the time of death, that she was buried on 15 Jan 1913, and that the undertaker was Lucian Karolkiewicz.

As in the first iteration, we formed a testable hypothesis for the second iteration .  The experiment in this iteration involved searching for Bertha’s death record in the Massachusetts State Archives .  While successful in locating the death record for Bertha Danko, the record itself did not disclose the place where Bertha was buried .  Nonetheless, we learned quite a bit in this iteration .  We learned that Bertha Danko’s real name was Bronislawa Danko, and we learned her age at death, her date of burial, and the name of the undertaker.

In Part 4 of this series, I will discuss how we used the data from Bronislawa’s death record to develop a new hypothesis for the next iteration of The Scientific Method.

For other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko

I started off this series with a description of The Scientific Method and posed two questions .  When should a genealogist apply The Scientific Method to a genealogical research problem?  How does one go about doing so?  What follows is a description of how my cousin and I used the scientific method to answer a question about our own family:  Where is our Aunt Bertha Danko buried?

1. Define the question:  Where is Bertha Danko buried?
2. Gather information and resources:  Family members related that Bertha Danko is buried in an unmarked grave in Hope Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts .  She died as an infant in Worcester, Massachusetts probably sometime between 1910-1915.
3. Form hypothesis:  Bertha Danko is buried in an unmarked grave in Hope Cemetery, Worcester, Massachusetts.
4. Perform experiment and collect data:  Joseph Danko went to Hope Cemetery and asked for burial information and grave location for Bertha Danko.
5. Analyze data:  Records for Hope Cemetery include no information on anyone with the surname Danko.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions:  Either Bertha Danko is not buried in Hope Cemetery, there is an error or omission in the cemetery records, or the clerk at the cemetery did not conduct an accurate and thorough search.
7. Publish results:  Information was communicated to other family members.
8. Retest (frequently done by others):  Several years after Joseph Danko went to Hope Cemetery, Stephen Danko visited the same cemetery and inquired about the burial information and grave location for Bertha Danko .  The results, interpretation, and conclusions were the same as reported by Joseph Danko.

It’s not difficult to define the question .  Genealogists generally have an infinite supply of questions they want answered:  When was John Smith born?  Who are his parents?  When did he come to this country?  What was his occupation?

But, when can a researcher apply The Scientific Method to help answer a genealogical question?  The answer is simple .  The Scientific Method can be applied to any genealogical research problem for which the researcher can develop a testable hypothesis .  First, one needs to have some information and resources from which to form the hypothesis .  This information may be in the form of some anecdotal evidence, in the form of primary information obtained from an original source, or in the form of any one of many other sources .  The hypothesis should be expressed as a statement of fact, so that one may later determine whether or not the results support or refute the statement.

When one performs the experiment and collects the data in a genealogical study, one doesn’t generally go into a laboratory and conduct an experiment on the laboratory bench top .  The experiment in a genealogical sense is usually a search of the relevant records, although other methods such as interviews or mathematical calculations may also be appropriate .  The genealogist then analyzes the information obtained, interprets the information, and draws conclusions from the information.

The results should be published, even if only to other family members, so that others can determine whether the information obtained justify the conclusions .  Other genealogists may wish to retest the hypothesis using the same or different approaches.

Well, in the example above, the result was negative .  We did not answer the initial question and it appears that the hypothesis may be false .  Part 3 of this series will examine the formation of a new hypothesis and beginning a new iteration of The Scientific Method.

For other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko

Kimberly Powell described genealogy as “North America’s Fastest Growing Hobby.”  While that is probably true, I personally consider genealogy to be more than just a hobby .  When considered as an academic discipline, genealogy is generally classified with the humanities (studies of the human condition) .  Academic studies in the humanities often rely on observation, analysis, and speculation to achieve their goals and, indeed, genealogy appears to fall into that category.

Still, from time to time there arises the question of whether some aspects of genealogy could also be considered to be a scientific discipline, where research relies on empirical evidence such as that derived from experimentation .  If so, when would a genealogist devise an experiment to solve a genealogical problem, and how would the genealogist construct the experiment?

I don’t think that genealogy qualifies to be called a scientific discipline .  There are, however, aspects of genealogical research that seem to be amenable to experimentation and The Scientific Method.

As a PhD scientist with many years of experience conducting bench-level experimentation, I use The Scientific Method in my daily work (and here I have capitalized The Scientific Method to make clear the fact that I’m referring to the set of steps commonly known by that name and not just a methodology that is scientific in nature) .  The Scientific Method is most easily understood in the context of the pure sciences where one conducts laboratory experiments to test hypotheses .  However, there is nothing in The Scientific Method that precludes its use in other disciplines.

The Scientific Method has been outlined and described in many different ways .  One of those that I find particularly useful reads as follows:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions (that may serve as a starting point for new hypothesis)
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by others)

When, by step 6, the researcher determines that the conclusions are unable to answer the question defined in step 1, the method loops back to step 2 to gather more information and resources or to step 3 with a new hypothesis.

So when should a genealogist apply The Scientific Method to a genealogical research problem and how does one go about doing so?

Part 2 of this series will begin a look at an example from my own research that I think demonstrates the use of The Scientific Method very well.

For other posts in this series, please see:

• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 1)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 2)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 3)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 4)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 5)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 6)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 7)
• Applying the Scientific Method to Genealogical Research (Part 8)

Copyright © 2010 by Stephen J. Danko