After two intensive days of genealogical immersion at the Ohio Genealogical Society Conference, I spent today absorbing knowledge from five remarkable sessions that have fundamentally changed how I’ll approach my family research. The “Light Up Your Genealogy” conference theme couldn’t have been more appropriate – each presentation illuminated different aspects of genealogical methodology that will brighten my research path for years to come.
Starting with Strategy: From Hypothesis to Research Plan (Dr. Michael D. Lacopo)
My day began with Dr. Lacopo’s insightful session on crafting effective research plans. His central message resonated deeply: random name searches rarely constitute meaningful research. Instead, he advocated for hypothesis-driven investigation where we:
- Begin with a specific, testable premise (not just “trace my family tree!”)
- Evaluate existing information critically – identifying timeline gaps and questionable assumptions
- Conduct thorough “homework” before diving into records
Lacopo emphasized understanding geographical contexts – not just where ancestors lived, but boundary changes, topography, and local histories that shaped their lives. “Use your county histories!” he insisted, noting that published local histories contain overlooked biographical gems.
What struck me most was how Dr. Lacopo reinforced the importance of the “Genealogical Quadfecta” that he had introduced on Day 1 – the four entities we should identify for every research location: genealogical society, historical society, library, and archive. These four pillars support comprehensive research that goes beyond basic vital records. Seeing this concept emphasized again helped solidify its importance in my research approach, and I could see how it connected with methodologies presented in other sessions throughout the day.
Negative findings received special attention – Lacopo argued they’re as significant as positive discoveries when properly documented. “Not finding something is as important as finding something,” he asserted, “but ‘Nope, I didn’t find anything’ is never an appropriate statement.” Understanding why expected records don’t exist can be the key to breaking through brick walls.
Indirect Evidence: Finding Parents Through the Back Door (Katy Bodenhorn)
Katy Bodenhorn’s session on indirect evidence perfectly complemented Lacopo’s methodology talk. She distinguished between three critical evidence types:
- Direct evidence explicitly answers research questions
- Indirect evidence suggests answers when combined with other information
- Negative evidence reveals important clues through conspicuous absences
Bodenhorn convinced me that well-constructed proof summaries using multiple indirect evidence sources can actually create stronger cases than single “smoking gun” documents. This approach seems particularly valuable for my Swedish ancestry research, where parish record notations require careful interpretation.
Her practical tips included using FamilySearch’s full-text search feature (accepting its AI-based limitations), maintaining comprehensive research logs, and investigating peripheral people like witnesses and neighbors who might connect to ancestors. I left with a new appreciation for reading published case studies to learn proven methodological approaches. This session has convinced me that I need to finally dive into those National Genealogical Society Quarterly articles I’ve been collecting and better utilize my subscription to Michael John Neill’s “Casefile Clues” – both resources that demonstrate these indirect evidence techniques in action through real-world examples.
Immigration Records: Following Our Ancestors’ Journeys (Melissa Tennant Rzepczynski)
Melissa Tennant Rzepczynski’s presentation on immigration records provided crucial context for understanding the changing nature of passenger lists:
- Pre-1820: Few records were kept, focusing primarily on cargo
- 1820-1891: Basic passenger information collected by ship captains
- Post-1891: Standardized procedures with government officials gathering detailed information
I appreciated her emphasis on supplemental records when passenger lists prove elusive – naturalization papers, census records, passport applications, ethnic banking records, and newspaper advertisements for missing relatives. The Boston Pilot’s “Missing Friends” section (1831-1920) seems particularly promising for my Irish lines.
Rzepczynski stressed a key methodological point: understanding immigration laws and processes during your ancestor’s time period is essential for finding relevant records. This historical context shapes where records exist and what information they contain.
DNA Methodology: Solving Margaret’s Mother Mystery (Judy G. Russell, JD, CG, CGL)
Judy Russell’s case study on using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to identify an ancestor’s mother was a masterclass in combining genetic and documentary evidence. She walked through the Board for Certification of Genealogists standards (51-57) for DNA research, emphasizing:
- Selecting appropriate test types (Y-DNA, autosomal, mtDNA) for specific research questions
- Developing proper testing plans targeting the right people
- Analyzing results using valid tools and correlating with documentary evidence
- Respecting privacy while meeting standards of proof
Russell stressed that conclusions require both genetic and documentary support – neither alone is sufficient. Her rigorous approach to testing hypotheses resonated strongly with Lacopo’s earlier methodology emphasis.
AncestryDNA: Maximizing Matches and ThruLines (Drew Smith, M.A. LIS)
Drew Smith closed the conference with practical strategies for using Ancestry’s DNA features effectively. He demonstrated powerful filtering and organization techniques:
- Creating custom color-coded groups for match management
- Using notes strategically (with Evernote for more extensive documentation)
- Communicating effectively with matches who have private trees
The case studies presented showed how ThruLines can identify common ancestors by analyzing connections across multiple family trees. The key takeaway: DNA results become most powerful when combined with traditional research methods.
Putting It All Together: My Action Plan
The conference has gifted me with a methodological framework that feels transformative for my research. I’ve created a master task list combining immediate follow-ups:
- Mysterious Mr. Max Research:
- Check Mattie Thompson’s lodger records for Clifford MacDowell Pitts
- Investigate Pitts’ subdivision in Edwardsville, IL – any connection to the NC Pitts?
- Revisit my BanyanDNA project with corrections from Dr. Larkin’s workshop
- Documentation Improvements:
- Create detailed timelines for ancestors with research gaps
- Establish consistent documentation templates for all findings (positive and negative)
- Begin writing proof summaries for conclusions based on indirect evidence
- Swedish Ancestry Research:
- Explore Y-DNA results for paternal line Mattisson connections
- Follow up on FAN club members from Swedish parish records
- Slovak Research:
- Compare Eva Marcisak’s conflicting birth dates between parents’ naturalization papers
- Look for birth certificate confirming correct date (March 4 vs. May 15, 1911)
- Work through the Workbook purchased from Michelle Tucker Chubenko to determine where my maternal paternal line (Dubinsky, Dubnianski, Dubyansdi) originated in Dubne, Poland, and what records may be available there
- Irish Research:
- Check “The Search for Missing Friends” for Dowling and McAuliffe mentions
- Investigate NY Emigrant Savings Bank records for William Dowling
- Review “The Famine Immigrants” lists for 1846-1851 arrivals
Beyond specific research tasks, the conference has reshaped my fundamental approach. I’ve realized I need to think more about records and locations than just names – considering my ancestors as complex individuals with defining traits beyond their genealogical identities.
Looking Forward: New Connections and Opportunities
I’ll be packing up and heading home in the morning, and while I’m anxious to be home and see my family, I’m energized by new methodologies and connections. One of the unexpected benefits of this conference has been connecting with members of the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania during networking events. After discussing my Slovak line that settled there, I discovered I may be eligible for one of the First Families of Pennsylvania Lineage Society in the Centennial Pennsylvanians: 1901–1924 category! I’ve already marked several GSP virtual events on my calendar to further those connections.
My genealogical education journey won’t stop with OGS either. Later this month, I’ll be headed to Louisville, Kentucky for the National Genealogical Society 2025 Conference – my first time attending this premier event. I’m looking forward to a full weekend of learning with some of the nation’s top genealogical educators.
The OGS Conference has truly “lit up” my genealogical path forward. Now it’s time to transform this inspiration into action!
Leave a Reply