Paul,

Paul Drake wrote:

> You need NONE of those terms to do excellent and complete research, and I
> advise all my students to forget those words.  "Primary", "secondary",
> "direct" and "indirect" have no meaning EXCEPT to the person saying or
> writing those words.  Those are used by some to reveal, based on the sources
> of the information, what they think of the QUALITY of the evidence being
> described by the words.
        I think disagree with you, at least in part.  The words do have very
specific meanings in a number of situations.  The problem is that the
meaning can shift from one situation to another because English just
doesn't have enough words to use a new word in each situation.  Their
usage in different situations, and thus their meanings, is not just a
matter of whim or "opinion" and most of the time they have nothing to do
with quality at all...except that original material, created close to
the actual events, by the actual participants in those events is
considered better than information generated by others at a later date.
        The first usage of primary and secondary than is in reference to types
of sources and distinguish the relationship between the source and the
subject of inquiry.  Primary sources are those original documents, such
as wills and deeds and census records.  Secondary sources such as county
histories, family histories are created after the fact and/or by
others.  One can get hyper-technical and declare
that one the original scrapes of papers are "primary", while will book
copies, deed book copies etc. are secondary because they are copies of
the originals.  However, for most practical purposes, the will books and
deed books are sufficient.   an example is if I write a report that is a
biography of Pres. Eisenhower, and I use his diaries, I am using primary
sources.  If I write my report using biographies written by other people
or newspaper articles, I am using secondary sources.  The report that I
write, regardless of the type of sources that I use, is considered
secondary by other researchers.
        As you can see, in this situation, primary and secondary have nothing
to
do with the quality of the information contained in the document or
source and is not intended to do so.
        Likewise, both direct and indirect have specific meanings.  Direct
evidence is evidence which actually spells out the relationships between
at least two parties.  An example of such evidence would be a deed which
states that John is giving land to his son William.  Indirect evidence
does give an explicit statement of any relationship.  In that example,
John would give land to William with no reason being stated.  The only
thing that the latter could be said to prove is that John knew William.
They might be father and son but they could also be brothers.
        Thus, direct evidence, because it does state relationships, would be,
qualitatively better, than indirect evidence, in theory, because it
eliminates the element of guessing on the part of the researcher.
However, neither of the words can possibly be an indication of the
accuracy of
the information contained in the document and again, it is not intended
to do so.
        That brings me to your discussion of the expression "preponderance of
evidence".  Rejecting "preponderance" because it has been "borrowed"
from law is wrongheaded.  The rejection is really an example of "dumbing
down".  In
fact, in light of your statements concerning the necessity to evaluate
each piece of evidence, it is the perfect word because it connotes just
that process of accumulating and evaluating evidence.  "Clear and
convincing" can ultimately lead to simplistic and inaccurate because it
does not connote the entire process and thoroughness that the process
entails.
        Let me give an example that will hopefully tie all this together.  It
isn't perfect but it comes close.
        Reading the Court Order books of Russell Co, VA, it is impossible to
prove that the widow Margaret Roman, married Russell Duty.  These order
books are primary sources yet they consistently refer to her as Margaret
Roman, never as Margaret Duty, except after she dies and her son is
granted administration of her estate.  There are no deeds which help.
The marriage records for the period are destroyed.  She left no will.
Tax lists give no indication.  All that can be found in Russell Co is
family tradition, which is a secondary source.  There are only two
little bits that support the idea in the primary sources and they are
indirect.  The first I mentioned above.  The second is that one of her
sons by her first husband is accused of attempting to shoot Russell Duty
(the young man missed) because Duty sold the young man's
horse--indicating that Duty was the titular owner and thus a
step-father.  Both these pieces of evidence are indirect.
        from this it would be possible to write a "clear and convincing"
report, based of circumstantial, meaning indirect, evidence, that could
be argued either way.  This where we come back to the shifting meanings
of "primary" and "secondary".  If I decided to give more "weight" to the
family tradition, which is a secondary "source", that tradition becomes
by primary piece of "evidence".  Again this is a qualitative statement
but merely reflects the importance that I have given it in my report.
The two little bits of evidence from the primary "sources" could be said
to be secondary "evidence" because they play a supportive role in
substantiating the primary piece.
        I could also shift my emphasis and declare that the primary "sources"
will be my primary "evidence", meaning that they will be more important
to my argument that Margaret and Russell never married.  It would be
clear and convincing because it is very simple, relying for the most
part on primary documents or sources, which are indirect or
circumstantial and by downplaying the family tradition as it is a
secondary source.
        The story of Margaret & Russell illustrates the real reason why the NGS
would like to dump the "preponderance" standard.  For Margaret had a
brother who, when he died, left no children.  He died in another county
and the resultant lawsuit ended up in an appeals court in Wyeth Co, VA.
Those lawsuit papers tell ust that Margaret Thompson married 1st William
Roman and then married Russell Duty.  Now we have what was lacking in
our previous imaginary reports:  a primary source, meaning one created
by the original participants, at or near the time of the events which is
direct, in that it specifies the relationships.
        This one document, both a primary & direct source, becomes my primary
piece of evidence, and my other pieces both from primary and secondary
sources which give direct and indirect evidence, become supportive and
secondary.
        The reason that the NGS wants to do away with "preponderance" is that
given 10 pieces of evidence that build a circumstantial case that
Margaret & Russell never married, balanced against the 1 primary source
says they were, they fear that researchers will opt for the 10 and
ignore the 1.
However, I think that is a mistake.  Instead people need to be taught
that "preponderance" includes an evaluation of the quality as well as
the quantity of evidence and a weighing of both.
        "Clear and convincing" can also create a situation in which researchers
become afraid of trying to build a circumstantial case because they
don't have that final document, as was found concerning Margaret &
Russell, which is both a primary and direct source.  Thus "clear and
convincing" ends up being a poor standard
because it can lead to situations which are less than thorough or to
situations in which researchers are afraid to accept circumstantial
evidence.  In other words, the new phrase can create the very problems
that it is intended to help eliminate by giving the impression that
words like "primary" and "secondary" etc are indications of quality, and
only of quality, instead of what they really are, indications of types
and usages.
        And finally I would like to state that "labeling" is the final step of
the process of evaluating evidence.  Learning the meanings of
"circumstantial", "hearsay", etc. is an important part of the process
because they ultimately help us to make the necessary judgments which
must be made in order to evaluate evidence.  Those terms aid in creating
that clarity of thought which is necessary to write the "clear and
convincing" genealogical report.
        Judgment is what it is all about ultimately and learning to make good
judgments requires that students be given all the tools necessary,
including the vocabulary to make distinction between differing pieces of
evidence and in differing situations.  It is impossible for a researcher
to evaluate a piece of evidence, be it direct, indirect, secondary or
primary, etc. if the reseacher doesn't even know what to call it.  How
can he be expected to evaluate its validity, or its accuracy...or even
its authenticity, if he has no categories to be his framework in the
first place?  Labels are a necessary part of making the final judgment
about a piece of evidence, which is to judge its quality, its worth.


Renee L. Dauven

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html