OnBoard, Volume 4, Number 2, May 1998
Reporting Standards: Client Research v. Personal
Research
Helen F.M. Leary, "Reporting Standards:
Client Research v. Personal Research," OnBoard 4
(May 1998).
Printer Friendly
Is there a difference? The genealogical field has long-established
standards for thorough and accurate investigations, reliable
documentation, and honest reporting.1 Does it
make a difference, then, whether quality research is being
done for oneself or for a client? Yes.
Investigation, documentation, and reporting are just three
of the four dimensions that define professional genealogical
research. The fourth is the ethical and satisfactory completion
of the work we have agreed to perform. Standards for client
satisfaction are not new. In general, they consider three
factors.
GOAL FULFILLMENT
Client research
The client defines the problem. Short of a blank check
and a carte blanche statement such as "Compile my family
history," the professional must adhere to the objective
and the parameters set by the client or else decline the
commission. Pursuing a different problem or going beyond
the confines of the client's definition violates acceptable
standards.
Example: Our client asks for "proof that John was
William's son." We cannot redefine the problem as "Who
was John's father?" and set out to find that answer.
If evidence exists that the father was Thomas, not William,
we would not seek, find, or report that evidence unless
it lay along the route we followed in the search for proof
of the William-John relationship.
Although we might advise clients about their problem definition,
they may insist on faulty ones. If so, the reports will
appear to be faulty — especially if findings are negative
— even though the research plans were intelligent and
responsive and were carried out with diligence. It is for
just this reason that the wise professional begins a report
by specifying exactly the goal and parameters set by the
client.
Personal research
Family genealogists define their own research goals. They
can (and should) redefine them when findings are negative
or inconclusive.
Example: We set out to "find proof' of a John-William
relationship alleged by others, If, along the way, evidence
emerges that suggests John's father was more likely Thomas,
we have a choice: complete the William work or shift immediately
to Thomas. (We would not abandon William altogether, since
those allegations still need to be addressed). But if Thomas's
role as John's father does not surface during the William
investigation, we revise our problem definition and continue
the search, perhaps for years, until we find it.
Whichever our choice, the report focuses on Thomas, with
the William allegation reduced to a footnote or appendix.
Because we restate the original problem in order to present
the Thomas findings in logical sequence, our report suggests
that the research was well-planned, focused, and comprehensive
— whether or not it actually was. Such a report is
valuable in our files, it is impressive when shared with
relatives, and it can make a superb case study when published.
But we keep in mind that both the research and the report
were free of constraints required by a client's problem
definition.
TIME AND FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS
Client research
Typical agreements between genealogists and their clients
cover two basic areas. Professionals promise to fulfill
assignments and render reports within a given period of
time. Clients commit to pay a specified sum in exchange
for an agreed-upon number of research hours and certain
expense reimbursements.
As professional researchers, we are ethically bound to
adhere to these parameters. Within them, we are expected
to take the most intelligent route to reach the client's
research goal — often, this is the shortest. Thus,
our report may appear to ignore many relevant sources and
be unduly incomplete, inconclusive, or negative. But a client
report serves two purposes: an accurate record of the research
results and an honest account of how (not merely whether)
the authorized hours were spent. If the report observes
standards of good research, documenting, reporting, and
client compliance, it is a quality product.
Personal research
When we work on our own families, time and finances are
important; but it is we who set the priorities. We might
travel extensively, rent microfilm, or hire agents in our
search for the "best evidence." Although we could
allot months or years of our own time to a task, financial
wisdom dictates that we confine the genealogists we hire
to a stated number of hours.
A comparison of reports we send to clients and to family
members may indicate better work on our own ancestors than
on our client's. Yet our understanding of proof standards
and our ability to plan and execute a project are the same.
Time — for doing the research and polishing the report
— is what makes the difference.
SCOPE RESTRICTIONS
Client research
Financial and other considerations also prompt clients
to narrow the scope of resources within which the genealogist
is authorized to work. Typically, clients identify the resources
they or their agents have already examined and specify the
repository or record group they want the professional to
search.
Therefore, if we redo (and bill for) research previously
conducted, without authorization, we violate professional
ethics. If we go beyond the confines of the client's instructions
(and bill for it), we violate standards of professional
research.
Genealogists also depend upon their clients for background
that targets the search to a place and time period. If a
preliminary analysis of the information raises questions
about its factual accuracy, we query the client before beginning
work. If the skill with which the prior research was done
is doubtful, we might ask permission to redo portions of
it. But if the client does not authorize revisiting the
records, we cannot just do it anyway and bill for the time.
If we choose to conduct that search, its results will be
included in the report, along with a tactful note that the
gravity of the issue compelled us to do the additional work
— but there is no charge.
Personal research
As family researchers, we are free to reexamine whatever
— whenever we wish. We may do it deliberately because
we realize that our (or a cousin's) research did not fully
exhaust a source or because we suspect that an earlier note
is mistaken. Perhaps we do it inadvertently because we neglected
to keep up our research logs and forgot that we already
did that work. In any case, it is unlikely that the final
report will record each of several visits to the same source.
Since the scope of our personal research is unlimited,
we may find critical evidence while aimlessly browsing,
while painstakingly burrowing through every mention of the
ancestral surname, or while following a well conceived research
plan. But when we compile the report, we define the problem
coherently and marshal our evidence in support of its solution.
Thus, even if we are lucky browsers or determined moles,
it will appear from the report that we followed that well
conceived research plan. We may appear to be more competent
than we are. (By the same token, inept definitions of the
problem and scattered discussions of the evidence may under-represent
our abilities. Intelligent research is the foundation, but
careful report writing is also essential.)
SUMMARY THOUGHTS
The increasing use of genealogical research in other fields
— from legal suits to genetic studies — has seen
a comparable increase in the scrutiny of research reports.
The availability of professional and family reports, now
shared electronically as well as on paper, permits detailed
comparisons of the qualities of both.
BCG has traditionally drawn distinctions between the reports
of research done for clients and those prepared for one's
personal file — or for publication. OnBoard has previously
defined the basic elements of competent report writing.2
But examination of reports alone can be misleading. Those
who do the work and those who use its results must understand
clearly the crucial distinctions between standards for personal
research and those that apply to client work.
HELEN F. M. LEARY, CG, CGL
Notes
1. For the basics of sound reporting - whether for clients
or for one's own files - see Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Your
Research Report," OnBoard 2 (May 1996): 9-13.
2. Ibid.
This article was originally published in OnBoard,
BCG's educational newsletter and is protected by copyright.
Individuals may download and print copies for their personal
study. Educators are granted permission to provide copies
to their students as long as BCG, OnBoard, and the
appropriate author are credited as the source of the material.
Republication elsewhere is not permitted.
|
