We’ve all encountered cases where people were known by different names at various times in their lives, or even at the same time, or where conflicting dates were given for the same event by sources of varying degrees of reliability. We may have attempted to clarify the matter by adding an explanatory note, in whatever space the form or program allowed. But that may not be sufficient in all cases.

When all the facts speak for themselves, a chart or database entry with a note on the source may be sufficient to compile a bare-bones compilation of people and their relationships. But if the facts need further explanation, or have been inconsistently stated in different sources, only a written account can adequately record what we’ve found.

Sometimes two or three sentences in a note will suffice. At other times, a half-page or more may be necessary to explain why we have placed a particular name or date in one of the blank spaces on a form or data-entry screen. Whatever the complexity, anyone who can explain it through spoken words can also do it in writing—it just takes a little longer.

There is no formula for good writing, but there are some general principles that can help, and these can be summarized under seven headings, each beginning with the letter C as a memory aid.

1. Cogitate. Think about what it is that needs to be described or explained, and how much is appropriate to include. Separate facts and assertions from conclusions drawn from them. Consider your reasons for accepting particular conclusions from other possible ones.

2. Classify. Sort your thoughts and organize them into related subject areas. List or outline the areas on paper, placing each fact or conclusion under an appropriate subject or heading for discussion. Feel free to rearrange them if you find a new classification system that will better serve your purposes.

3. Characterize. Decide how formally or informally you will relate to your readers, by use of the grammatical first, second, or third person (I, you, he, or she) and plural (we, you, and they). Decide the extent to which actions will be attributed to those who did them by use of active (eg., they found) or passive (eg., it was found) voice.

Unless a different style is expected by a particular publication or group of readers, it is best to start with the style you would use in conversation.

There is a tradition in report writing that discourages use of the first person (I, we, or us), because it seems either self-promoting or insufficiently objective. Nevertheless, there is no reason to avoid the first person when it is the most straightforward way to express your thoughts.

Note the effect of such choices on the style of this article, for example.  It begins with an inclusive use of the first person “we” that encompasses both writer and reader, but shifts to the second person “you” and “your” in describing the seven C principles of writing. In effect, it switches from a joint experience to a style more characteristic of a teacher-student relationship.

Plural pronouns are frequently used to avoid gender-specific references when referring to both men and women. It requires care, however, to avoid disconcerting switches in number in the course of a discussion. For instance, after a reference to “a researcher,” it is disconcerting to read “their.” Use either the plural throughout— “researchers” and “all”—or the more awkward “his or her” if the preceding references are singular.

The first person plural “we”(used above to include both writer and reader) is also appropriate for authors who are describing the work of their research team.

4. Compose. This is the step that may seem to present the most difficulty, but it actually takes the least effort. The trick is to let the words flow, just as you would in describing or explaining the matter vocally. Sometimes it helps to dictate into an audio recording device so your expression isn’t inhibited by your ability to capture it by writing or typing. Fluency is the characteristic of effective writing that results from the words flowing in a natural progression.

5. Choose. Take what you have reduced to writing, and go back over the words you used. Does each of them convey precisely what you had in mind, or is there another word or term that might be more clearly understood by your reader(s)? You may want to refer to a glossary or thesaurus (although many good writers won't use a thesaurus, doubting their abilities to distinguish among the shades of meaning that differentiate similar words).

6. Craft. Convert your account into a finished work by making sure that your capitalization and punctuation meets the standards of a generally recognized style manual, your spelling is accepted by a standard dictionary, and your style meets the grammatical standards for formal or informal written English.

It is very desirable at this point to have someone other than yourself review the work. If it is to appear in periodical or book form, it will at a minimum receive the attention of the publisher’s editor, but it is best if you can find one or more people willing to review the work critically before anyone else sees it. At a minimum, the reviewer should be sensitive to spelling, punctuation, style, and grammatical considerations. If that reviewer isn’t conversant with the subject, have a second reviewer go over it for content.

If neither of these alternatives is feasible, ask any literate adult to read it and point out any areas that aren’t clear. This can be a very useful check, especially if you don’t expect your readers to have any special knowledge of genealogical research.

Some years ago, while on the staff of a long-established non-profit organization, I produced the organization’s first written history, which the organization intended to publish for its members. I was proud of the result. It was based on primary information from original sources, which were described in the text since higher authorities had decided notes were not appropriate for a popular account. My ego was somewhat deflated when my supervisor asked me to give it to a  clerk in the office for review. When I protested that he had neither the knowledge nor interest to evaluate it properly, the reply was “Do it. If he understands it, all our people will.” The published version benefited from rewriting three parts that the clerk had trouble with, and I learned a lasting lesson about writing.

7. Circulate. In this final step, your work is reproduced in multiple copies through printing, photocopying, or digital reproduction, and distributing it to others who share an interest in the subject. This step isn’t necessary to the accurate recording of your research results, but it offers two significant advantages that shouldn’t be passed up. First, by placing copies of your work at remote locations, you safeguard it against loss. Second, by exposing it to the review, criticism, and comment of other interested people, you may generate corrections, suggestions, and supplemental information that may never have come to your attention had your written account remained in your own files.

published, all there is to know about a single family. Every written genealogical account, whether a half-page report on the determination of a single relationship, or a multi-volume work on thousands of descendants through many generations, must be considered a work in progress—always subject to reevaluation or revision when new evidence comes to light. Circulation of your written accounts of family research can help that progress.

We (note the return to the inclusive first person) have reviewed seven principles that can help reluctant writers commit their thoughts to paper with a minimum of anguish. We can commit an account to writing at any stage of research because any family history study is always a work in progress.

You will find that preparing a written account, though time-consuming, has three significant advantages that justify whatever tedium it involves. 1) The writer has a complete record of how a conclusion was reached from a number of items of evidence, sometimes conflicting or contradictory, from various sources. 2) Missing information and unpersuasive reasoning often become apparent during the writing process, identifying areas that need additional research or possible reconsideration. 3) A considered and well-expressed written account of the matter will help others understand it more readily.

We should never postpone writing our results because we are still searching for additional evidence. No account of genealogical findings is ever the last word. If the status of our current work has been described in writing, any necessary reevaluation in the light of newfound evidence will be greatly expedited.

Donn Devine, CG, CGI, a genealogical consultant from Wilmington, Delaware, is an attorney for the city and archivist of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington. He is a director of the National Genealogical Society and chair of its Standards Committee, and is a trustee of the Board for Certification of Genealogists®.

Return to the Ancestry Magazine May/June 2002 Table of Contents.