Citing information gleaned from a page by page search or examination of a large record set

Interesting questions, wfall! Taking your questions, piece by piece:

Q: How do you create a citation when the entire record or collection of records is your reference?

A: The basic framework of citations kicks in here.  Typically:

1. Source List citations are constructed to (a) identity the record or record set.
2. Reference Note citations are constructed to (a) identify the record or record set, and (b) drill down to the exact item, page, or other location.

For those occasions when we, say, need to document a negative search:

• Our Source List citation would (a) identify the record or record set.
• Our Reference Note citation would (a) identify the record or record set; then (b) add an explanation of what we have done with that record set—our search parameters, etc.

Q: How do we cite an unpaginated diary with numerous references in one limited part of the diary?

A: Two things are important to keep in mind here:

• Each and every assertion of “fact” in our narrative or database must be keyed to supporting evidence. If we were using a book that made 26 specific assertions, would we write a generic citation to say “ Evidence for each of these 26 facts can be found somewhere between pp. 100–175”? Or would we key each asserted fact to a specific page?
• Diaries are typically dated. That serves as a pagination substitute of the same type that we use for, say, unpaginated court orders or unpaginated sacramental registers.

Therefore:

1. Our Source List citation would (a) identify the diary according to its format—published or unpublished.
2. Our Reference Note citation would (a) identify the diary according to its format; and (b) cite the date for the specific assertion.

Q: How do we cite our personal analysis of a block of records?  Example:

Going through a few years’ worth of probate inventories and noting 10% of the people mentioned jewelry, is it enough to say that I examined 200 records within a specific date range and 20 mentioned jewelry? Do I need to provide explicit references to those 20?

A: The basic framework for citing an “entire record or collection of records” would apply here.  But your explanation would be much more detailed.  For example:

• Readers will have questions: What were your criteria for selecting those two hundred records? A specific time frame? Just people you’re interested in? People of a certain socio-economic strata or all people?  People in a specific community? Etc.

• For credibility, you have to give some specifics. In the situation you describe, one approach would be to simply list the twenty individuals and the year of the inventory. Your basic citation would likely have identified the probate set sufficiently for each individual’s inventory to be locatable by name and date.

wfall, I totally agree with you that aggregating birth record data can reveal naming patterns.  But, when "citing individual birth records would [seem] burdensome," it's time to remember the purpose of short citations. When doing genealogical or family history research, as you seem to be doing, citing the exact source of a birth, marriage, or death date is absolutely fundamental. It would also be burdensome to your readers to go through hundreds of pages of a diary to find the one date that is critical to them.  (How burdensome would it be, when you cite a date in your narrative or enter a date into your relational database, to add—say—"Jones Diary, 2 March 1842"?)

Regarding the creation of a database that could (theoretically) be more easily cited: A database is a derivative. Every time a derivative entry is created, there is the likelihood of error. The larger the database, the more likelihood of errors. We are also taking data out of context, which strips away data that could be gleaned from surrounding entries within the original. If we wish to create a database for our own analytical purposes, that can be a very useful thing to do. But citing a database we created from the original, in lieu of citing the original, will frustrate users of our work and lessen the degree of trust.

With regard to your first question:

"to extend the diary example — let's say I build a frequency table showing how often specific individuals are mentioned. If the diarist mentions John 230 times and Mary 133, do I still list individual entries, perhaps in an appendix?

How things are handled also depends upon what you are producing. Your reference to an appendix suggests that you are preparing a book. (Yes? No?)  Is it a transcription of the diary? A family history in which you will have a biography of John? A historical narrative in which there will be random references to John and his actions?  These options introduce myriad ways of handling the material. For example:

• If you are preparing a diary transcription, then your index would provide a page number citation to each mention of John. No appendix would be needed.
• If you are preparing a biography or a historical narrative, then your text will drive your selection of data from the original, and each time you make assertions that depend upon the diary for veracity, you would attach a citation. But, surely, all 230 mentions of John and all 133 mentions of Mary would not become part of your narrative.
• Your narrative is governed by a theme. There are certain points you want to make and you will provide evidence to support those points. What benefit would there be to the reader to know that John was cited 230 times and Mary 133?  If those numbers are essential to a point you are making, then you would make the point in your narrative and certainly you would not have to create a citation to each of those references. The reader will understand that you made your own count. Nor would you need to create an appendix to list each reference, unless there is something more you have in mind that would make such an appendix useful.

wfall, you're thinking this through well. Definitely, family history needs more analyses of the aggregate and more students of Gloria Main's work.