My maiden name is Brown.
Yep. In the 2000 Census of the United States, it was the fourth most common surname in the country, beat out by Smith, Johnson and Williams (Genealogy Data: Frequently Occurring Surnames from Census 2000. United States Census Bureau. Accessed 21 May 2012. http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/2000surnames/index.html).
We all love the "needle in a haystack" analogy, right?
This is a common topic for genealogy bloggers, researchers and professionals alike. I've been reading tips for over a decade, trying to find what works and what doesn't. There are some basic tools that are used regularly, cluster research, for example. (Cluster research is looking at each individual in the family: how many John Brown's have a wife named Amanda and four daughters; Amy, Andrea, Alexis and Alyson? Of course, its not always that easy.) You can find great suggestions on various blogs, like Elyse's Genealogy Blog, by Elyse Doerflinger, and her post: 3 Tips for Researching Common Surnames (5 Jan 2011).
My question is this: what if you have the needle, but not the hay?
What happens when you have a theory you are trying to prove, but not enough evidence to prove or disprove? I have a few of these gems, and for me, they are as frustrating and difficult as the John Brown's of the world, surrounded by hay.
So this is more about what I do in either case. Often, the research techniques can be the same or at least similar. Not everybody in my ancestral line gets the same treatment; some walls are just more important than others to destroy. Assume that up to this point, I have already conducted a fairly thorough search of the more common resources, both online and off. I've looked at B,M,D, I've reviewed my notes, I've gone back over all the documentation.
|This is my brain obliterating|
genealogy brick walls. Or, at least I
like to think so.
Creative Commons: www.ropeadope.com
Step 2 (though it doesn't always necessarily happen in this order): I draw a picture. It could be a hand written pedigree for the individual, with room for notes, it could be a giant word bubble, it could be a literal sketch of what I think that person looked like. Anything to get my creative juices flowing, the other side of my brain working. Once in a while, its enough of a boost to either motivate me to keep going or gain a new idea on a resource, an avenue of their lifespan I haven't explored yet.
Step 3. Start a new tree. Really. I take this one person, with only his vitals, and start a new tree in my software. That way, I can work on his life alone without influence from those around him. Yes, cluster research works very well, however, sometimes it helps to separate yourself and the subject from everything else. Isolate that person, and see what comes to your brain. If you find evidence that you conclude is correct, you can fairly easily merge the two files or transfer one piece of data at a time.
Always, along the way, talk. Talk out loud. Talk to your cat, the computer, a cup of coffee, a spouse, the tree outside the window. Anything. Just talk. It's the same concept as when you are writing a paper (or editing one!), and they tell you to read it to yourself. Then read it backwards. You find more errors, you are able to make corrections on flow and rhythm. The same theory applies here: if you talk, it forces your brain to process more. It makes you more aware of the possible date mistakes, the pieces of information you have yet to collect, the gaps in your timeline.
Lastly, tell their story. Blog it, journal it, put it in Word and let it sit in your computer. It's the same as talking; spelling it out and putting everything you know out there in some format will cause your brain cells to click into gear. It doesn't matter if you ever share it with anybody else. Just get it out.
I would love to hear about what you do. Hay, no hay, different colors of hay, hay in multiple places. Let the destruction begin! Please share your comments and thoughts.