An investigative basic … let the evidence dictate the theory.

As this is my first post on this website, I wanted to address the basic rule of investigation before considering the more specific details of a forensic approach to genealogical research.

At the most basic level, an investigation can fall short for a number of reasons, which can include a lack of evidence to support, or negate, a theory an investigator may have about an event. A lack of evidence is not necessarily the fault of the investigator, unless they overlooked, or omitted to include, evidence, as part of an investigation. But, a bias as to how the evidence is analysed and tested is a shortcoming of the investigator. In all circumstances the evidence must dictate the theory an investigator has about how an event occurred, not the other way around. Seeking out only that evidence that supports a theory held by an investigator can result in, from a genealogical research perspective, incorrect ancestor placement within a family tree, to, at worst, in the criminal justice arena, charges being laid against an otherwise innocent person and potentially a wrongful conviction in Court.

The role of an investigator, or researcher, regardless of whether that investigation is criminal or genealogical research related, is to gather evidence, and through an interpretation of the gathered evidence, make a finding regarding whether, and in what circumstances, an event occurred. In a criminal investigation, this ‘event’ would be a crime, while in a genealogical investigation, this ‘event’ could be to establish an ancestor’s position within a family tree. In both cases the investigator is required to undertake a process of evidence gathering. What evidence is adduced and how it is interpreted rests upon what the investigator is seeking to uncover.

The Genealogical Proof Standard codifies how a genealogical investigator should set about answering a question so that the answer reflects ‘historical reality’.¹ As with all investigations, the investigator is required to undertake a reasonably exhaustive degree of research to uncover relevant evidence that can be used to formulate a conclusion about a matter under investigation.² An investigator necessarily starts with an issue that needs to be investigated. Even at this early stage the investigator may have a theory that they are seeking to either prove or disprove. Ideally, as evidence is adduced the theory that the investigator has should adapt to the strength of the evidence that is located. A good investigator adapts their theory to address any conflicting evidence that may be uncovered, whereas a lazy investigator will seek out and consider only that evidence that supports their initial theory. This latter approach to investigation is dangerous and will lead to incorrect assessments being made, and any assertions presented as not reflective of historical reality.

There are three reasons why an investigator may encounter problems with decision making when it comes to adducing evidence and then analysing that evidence to reach an objective conclusion about the question under consideration. These reasons are listed below and all revolve around biases that the investigator may have. These biases are:

• Personal bias
• Verification bias, and
• Availability error.³

A ‘personal bias’ arises when an investigator has preconceived ideas, or moral or ethical beliefs, about the event under investigation and adduces evidence that conforms to those biases. For example, an investigator may have strong adverse beliefs about children being born out of wedlock, and so may seek to withhold any evidence of ancestry that suggests ancestors were born in this way. In this example, the investigator doesn’t withhold evidence that there was a birth, just that the mother wasn’t married at the time of the birth.

A ‘verification bias’ arises when an investigator has a preconceived idea, or theory, about how an event unfolded, and seeks to adduce only the evidence that supports that theory. In the above example, an investigator may rely on a death certificate that indicates that the parents of the child were married at the time the child was born, rather than on the child’s birth certificate that shows that the fathers name has been excluded as a consequence of the parents not being married at the time of the birth.

The ‘availabilty error’ suggests that an investigator will tend to rely on evidence that is ‘vivid, dramatic or memorable’, at the expense of other evidence that may more accurately reflect the truth of an event.⁴

These biases may occur consciously, or subconsciously. When occurring consciously, the investigator has intentionally embarked upon a path of deception and is entering dangerous territory with regard to their findings, and also their own credibility, both of which could be classified as flawed.

To counter these biases occurring at the subconscious level, the investigator needs to not only be aware of their existence, but also to review and challenge their work for the existence of those biases. In basic terms, an investigator needs to remember that the evidence needs to dictate the theory surrounding how an event occurred, and that the theory needs to adapt to any contradictory evidence that is located. It becomes dangerous territory when allowing the theory to dictate what evidence is considered.

________________________________________________________________________________

Endnotes: