Citing negative findings from another researcher

By cryptoref on Mon, 01/17/2022 - 17:01

Forums

This is just a fun one as we sometimes have to "break" some rules. One of the assignments in a class I am taking is to create a DNA proof argument based on DNA and paper trail evidence provided to the class. We are, however, supposed to create the proof argument without doing any additional research (i.e. the task is to use the information provided and focus on the proof argument). 

One path would be to simply use the evidence provided and act like it came from me and focus on the argument. That will obviously work, but I'd like to work through how one would break the rule of 2.21 and cite the source of a source. 

The most obvious one to work on is the research that had some negative findings, no records found. This can certainly change over time as more records become available. 

I'm going to anonymize this citation so it doesn't give away what I'm working on.

1

GenealogyClass [search conducted by course creators], negative search results, "Anonymous Birth Records, 1800-2000," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed October 2020), for any Humperdink, born in Timbucktoo between 1815-1825, no Humperdink found.

2

Negative search results, "Anonymous Birth Records, 1800-2000," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed October 2020), for any Humperdink, born in Timbucktoo between 1815-1825, no Humperdink found; search conducted by GenealogyClass course creators and citation provided to class participants.

 

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 01/18/2022 - 10:07

Mike, because this is a class assignment: the less I say, the better.  All I should say, and only as food for thought, is this:

  • Negative findings are not a source.
  • Conclusions are not a source.
  • Citation elements are presented in a certain sequence in order for both the source and our intent to be understood.
  • EE citations do cover situations in which we report what we are told.

But, yes, it's an interesting situation.