Scoping the Problem Statement in a Research Report

Excellent question, History-Hunter.  As you probably suspected, the answer is going to be "It depends." 

First, you will notice that QuickLesson 20 does not use the descriptor “problem statement.” The reason is fundamental. A problem statement would have multiple components: (a) Background detail; and (b) the objective of this one segment of research. 

To put it another way: The goal (aka, objective, goal, task, etc.)  for any block of research also depends upon (a) the nature of the problem,  (b) the existing knowledge that lays the foundation for this particular segment of research; (c) the region, time frame, and resources available.

We do begin by defining a problem, but that problem may range from very specific to very general. At my website Historic Pathways, under the “Research” tab, you’ll find three dozen or so of the research reports I’ve prepared across the past dozen years. The “objective” for each segment of research runs a wide gamut. For example:

Report:   Samuel Witter, 17th U.S. Infantry, War of 1812, Enlistment Record: An Analysis 

TASK:      Analyze the document and prepare a work plan based upon the clues therein

Report:   Maternal Ancestry of Marie Hyacinthe Gagné, Wife of James (a.k.a. Jacques & Jacob) Wallace

TASK:       Confirm the identity of Marie Louise's parents and provide a fuller identity for each of them

Report:   Addisons of Elbert, Franklin & Gwinnett Counties, GA (c1780–1835): Preliminary Survey

TASK:       Glean all possible information on Addisons, Watts, and key associates within the two days available for this onsite work. To best utilize the limited time, work should begin with a literature survey, then move into original records as time permits.

Report:   Revolutionary War Capt. John Watts of Camden District, South Carolina: Was He John Watts of Fairfield’s Wateree Creek or John Watts of Kershaw’s Lynches Creek?

TASK:       Gather all identifiable records for Patriot or Loyalist service in Camden District. Include known associated families, particularly Duke, Hornsby, Perry, Pickett, and Rawls.

Report:   William Mills of Haile’s Tithe List, 1750, Lunenburg Co., Virginia: Identification Needed

TASK:      Study the 118 men on the Nicholas Haile list of 1750 to determine more precisely the location of Haile’s precinct. Use online land grant records and a literature survey of published deeds, probate records, and road orders to place these men into residential and associational clusters on specific waterways.

Report:   Watts: Initial Survey of Published Resources for Colonial and Revolutionary Anson County, NC, and Its Parent or Daughter Counties

TASK:      Determine whether any ties can be found between John Watts of Fairfield [SC] and the North Carolina Watts living in Anson, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, or Montgomery.

You ask for a "typical problem statement for one of the initial research reports involving family sourced evidence." For me, when I begin a project, my “initial research” is not going to be a statement of a point I want to prove. For me, the “initial research” is a evidence-gathering process. You’ll see that again and again in the work samples that I’ve posted. The statements most often resemble the Addison example above.

Yes, History-Hunter, there are situations in which it is absolutely logical to update a report from an earlier time frame. And times when it is not advisable.

An example of a situation in which I would choose the update option would be "Samuel Witter’s Fellow Soldiers, Lt. Benjamin W. Sanders’s Co., 17th U.S. Infantry, War of 1812" (https://historicpathways.com/download/samuelwitterfellowsoldiers.pdf).  

The objective of that report was to study Samuel's comrades in search of clues that might point to his own identity and help to distinguish him from other same-name men. I originally did the report in February 2012. At that time, the War of 1812 pension files at Fold3 only covered the first few letters of the alphabet. Since then, it has undergone two updates as other materials became available. If I had created separate reports on those two occasions, my data on that subject would have been fragmented. Revising the report to incorporate the new material was the most-logical approach.

In other situations, I would choose to create an additional report, rather than revising or updating an existing report.  For example, in my Watts section under the previously cited “Research” tab, you'll see two reports:

• Watts: Initial Survey of Published South Carolina Resources for Old Craven County, Camden District, and the Counties Cut from Them. (2014)
• Watts: Legal Records of Fairfield and Kershaw Counties, South Carolina (Previously Camden District and Craven County), Pre-1830. (2014)

Both of these cover the same region, but the first report was an initial survey of published resources, while the second report focused upon the unpublished  legal records.

Similarly, in the Mills section, you’ll see another pair:

• Southside Virginia: Initial Survey of Published Resources
• Bedford County, Virginia: Extended Survey of Resources

The “Southside Virginia” report included Bedford. The second report includes many published resources for Bedford that were not in the first report. The first report was 109 pages. The second report was 40 pages. If the first report had been reasonably small and, subsequently, I found another source or two that had not been included, I would likely have added the new tidbits into the earlier report.  In this case, the length of the earlier report and the amount of new material clearly called for a separate report.

History-Hunter, you also wrote: "I am in the process of re-evaluating my accumulated material." 

This is the situation I was in with "Mills & Associates: Franklin & Floyd Counties, Virginia: Initial Survey."  You'll note there my "Background Data" includes this:

CAVEAT:             

This report includes some extracts from tax rolls, court orders, and deeds that I made as a beginning genealogist, along with random material gathered across several decades when a concerted research effort was not possible. Now, as a starting point toward resolving the identity and parentage issues that have not been resolved in the intervening decades, I am incorporating those early notes into this report. Future project segments will redo that early work to ensure thoroughness.

History-Hunter,

The simplest and most accurate way to handle the collection is to simply name it after your mother--say, Mary Smith Jones Collection. Under that umbrella, you could then subdivide it into folders according to record types. Your citations to these materials, of course, would be to the Document < File < Collection, following the format for family artifacts, rather than citing them to specific government offices that should not be guessed at.

Thanks, History-Hunter for suggesting these two sources to our readers. I have not seen the marchif article and look forward to reading it. As for Mr. Proctor's Parallax View, he thinks deeply about many related issues.