Research in family historians

I have recently published another research article on family history (link to the previous article about a survey of family historians). This time, in collaboration with my colleague Ann-Sofie Klareld from Lund University, we have conducted a study on interdisciplinary research in the field, a literature review. In the article, we explore the research that has been conducted within family history over time, and how cultural institutions can utilise this knowledge to better understand and address the challenges faced by cultural heritage today.

The article itself, in English, was published in an academic book about libraries, archives, and digital humanities and is freely available for download:

Roued, Henriette, og Ann-Sofie Klareld. 2024. ‘Multidisciplinary Research on Family Historians: Framing Current Challenges in Cultural Heritage’. In The Routledge Companion to Libraries, Archives, and the Digital Humanities, edited by Isabel Galina Russell and Glen Layne-Worthey (link for the open access download).

Initially, the article explains why family history is important. As Redmann wrote in an article in 1993¹:

Because this interest cuts across ethnic, gender, and age divisions, genealogy and local history have proved to be important educational tools for teaching a wide public the value of studying and preserving history.

Family history shows our need to understand ourselves as part of a larger historical picture, highlighting how family history can uncover hidden stories that still affect us today.

We reviewed all the literature we were able to find on the subject to answer three research questions: What research areas are interested in family history? How are family historians studied? What do we know about family history that can be used in future research and the development of digital cultural heritage?

Previous studies have noted the limited academic interest in family historians to date and pointed out that the field is interdisciplinary. Our analysis found four approaches in the literature:

1. The historical approach, which was particularly prominent in the 1970s and 1980s, and first recognized family historians as an important user group of libraries and archives.
2. The practical approach, which gained momentum in the 2000s and focused on the information behavior of family historians.
3. The emotional approach, which became more widespread in the 2010s and examines emotions and identity connected to family history.
4. The critical approach, which has evolved over time and reflects cultural shifts, extending research interest to areas outside the USA and Europe.

The historical approach

The early literature examining family history originated from librarians and archivists, particularly in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s. These professionals characterised family historians as important users of historical sources in archives and libraries, focusing especially on the challenges family historians faced in accessing information. For instance, North American family historians of European descent could easily trace their families back to the 19th century through American census records but could rarely go back further in other countries of origin. The solution to this issue came through the collective efforts of family historians in indexing, transcribing, and microfilming historical sources, and later digitizing them and making them available online. Much of this work was supported by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) in the United States, initially in North America and later in other parts of the world, particularly the United Kingdom and Scandinavia.

In the 1970s, the number of family historians in the United States grew for several reasons, including increased leisure time, a desire for anchorage in a more mobile world, the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1976, Alex Haley’s novel “Roots” that same year, and the subsequent television series in 1977. “Roots” particularly inspired family historians with African-American roots, but also the broader population.

In 1979, Rhoads² highlighted that family historians contribute to academic research in both history and sociology, welcoming the increased use of archives. However, the rising interest in family history, leading to more users of archives and libraries, was not seen entirely positively from the institutions’ perspective. Archivists and librarians often felt caught between two groups: professional historians on one side and amateur family historians on the other. In 1981, Jacobsen described a condescending attitude among archive staff, who felt greater intellectual satisfaction assisting historians rather than family historians. Evans later noted that this attitude likely persists, though it is harder to document in writing today.

In the early 1980s, Sinko og Peters³ from the Newberry Library in Chicago conducted the first known survey of family historians as users of library services. The survey challenged stereotypes about family historians as a homogeneous group of older women. It concluded that family historians were reasonably independent but infrequent users of libraries, who wished to better utilize the collections, and emphasized that they should be treated as individuals rather than a homogeneous group. This laid the groundwork for the growing interest in examining family historians more closely.

The practical approach

Although the negative discourse about family historians is less pronounced today, there remains a certain hesitation to engage with a growing group of people who are neither regarded as “real historians” nor as a new, exciting user group by cultural institutions. This is despite the fact that family historians are some of the most well-defined users of archives and libraries. They are early adopters of technology, ranging from databases and web forums to DNA analysis, and can be valuable partners in the development of digital heritage (see infobox below). There is still much to learn by understanding their practices and information behaviors.

Scholars in archival and library science have explored family historians’ information behaviors through empirical methods such as surveys, interviews, and observations, often in conjunction with user studies or studies of information behavior. Several studies have shown that family historians’ information-seeking follows a cyclical pattern, with varying strategies for finding information and a preference for informal networks and sources of information. Yakel⁴ notes a continuous variation in their information behavior, including information management, which fosters a deeper connection to the past and a better understanding of one’s life. Friday⁵ further developed these ideas into a circular model of family historians’ online behavior, where there is no fixed beginning or end. In an article I published in 2023⁶ along with Castenbrandt and Revuelta-Eugercios, we used this cyclical pattern to model family historians’ use of different digital platforms as a “buffet model” (read the post about this article here).

Family history is one of the major driving forces behind the digitization and transcription of historical documents in research institutions, libraries, and archives. Family historians organized their own crowdsourcing projects long before the concept became popular in cultural institutions and universities. While communities were previously centered around associations, newsletters, and mail, most of these activities have now moved online and continue to grow. From bulletin boards to social media, family historians enthusiastically pose and answer questions, helping each other in a spirit of reciprocity.

The emotional approach

Family history, which concerns familial relations, has long been studied from anthropological and sociological perspectives. These relations evoke fundamental thoughts about personal and collective identity, making family history an emotionally charged activity. De Groot⁷ points out that there is both the joy of discovering new relatives and the thrill of historical detective work. Many family historians describe their pursuit as a passion or even an obsession, driven by a need for identity and belonging. Therefore, other emotions such as grief, anger, and shame are also part of family history, which, as Barnwell
⁸ notes, can evolve over time from generation to generation.

Before the 1970s, family history often pertained to social status and inheritance, whereas in the last 50 years it has increasingly become a means to highlight the lives of the marginalized and challenge traditional narratives. For instance, Basu⁹ views family history as a spiritual journey, particularly in diaspora communities, where it becomes a way to rediscover a sense of home. Or as Edwards¹⁰ understands it, as a form of caregiving for both the dead and the living.

Various researchers have highlighted the identity work in family history. For example, concerning the self-reflection and revelations one can experience, which Saar¹¹ believes lead to insights into one’s own identity. Some speak of the “boundary work,” or boundary negotiation, that all family historians perform when they choose and exclude who they want to include or focus on in their family tree. Where does the line go for who is family and who is not? It is a choice that each family historian must decide for their family tree. Sometimes, unexpected relations and stories also appear that may not be particularly welcome. Here, the family historian must renegotiate the family tree and possibly their own identity.

The critical approach

Previously, family historians were perceived as problematic in archives and libraries due to their large numbers and perceived inferiority to professional historians. However, contemporary research suggests that family history harbors the potential to challenge power structures, ethnicity, and gender, providing valuable insights into digital heritage.
DNA testing has revolutionized the field by introducing the concept of genetic family history. Although DNA is often misconstrued as objective proof of kinship, Hackstaff¹² argues that experienced family historians are aware that DNA information requires verification from other more traditional sources. Additionally, there is growing criticism of DNA companies that highlights postcolonial issues, where the genetic material of minorities is treated as a commodity without regard to their rights.

Traditionelle slægtstræer og moderne værktøjer bygger ofte på vestlige normer, som kan ekskludere andre kulturers forståelser. På den anden side giver slægtsforskning mulighed for at fremhæve marginaliserede gruppers liv og historie. Sleeter¹³ discusses “critical family history,” which focuses on the influence of racism and other social structures on family life but laments that most genealogists fail to ask critical questions about their family’s social context.

In popular culture, Scodari¹⁴ points out that television programs often present simplified family histories, where broader social contexts are ignored. However, genealogical research can also challenge racial and national categories, offering new perspectives on historical injustices and their significance for descendants’ present lives.

What can research in family historians offer?

The focus of the article has been to clarify what we know about family historians and how researchers study them. However, as both Klareld and I also research cultural institutions, we were keen to demonstrate to colleagues in research and practice the value of understanding family historians as more than just a large user group.

We aimed to highlight the points where knowledge of and partnership with family historians can help address some of the challenges that cultural institutions face today. As Redmann stated back in 1993:

If both archivists and genealogists recognize that they can learn from one another, the future may see their relationship moving from uneasy peace to active partnership.

Have we reached the point where family historians are perceived by institutions and professionals as valuable collaborative partners? Rather than being seen, at best, as volunteers who can support the institution’s goals, or at worst as annoying individuals who take up space from more valuable “new user groups”?

It is difficult to say, even now when many cultural institutions have a strong focus on participation, representation, inclusion, and diversity. Perhaps this is because, as Evans points out in 2020, “academic disdain for genealogists remains hard to document because it is usually articulated orally and rarely in writing”.

In any case, we have suggested some areas where this knowledge about family historians can contribute to solving some of the issues we face in digital heritage:

Creating a practice around digital collections that takes into account the actual future user needs among the general population, rather than a narrow, unclear user need within the professional sphere. This includes examining the many examples of existing digital collections whose historical development and continued use have been driven by the needs of family historians to find and preserve their own history.

Also, when it comes to the development of digital platforms, knowledge of and collaboration with family historians can help optimize often scarce resources. Within the field of digital humanities, there has long been talk of a “project graveyard,” referring to digital projects that lacked long-term sustainability in mind. My interpretation is that there was a lack of a large user group whose demand could sustain the project’s continued development. Here, family historians have great potential as major users of digitised sources.

Digitised sources, which we believe no group has contributed as much to as family historians. Worldwide, they have been pioneers in transcribing, indexing, microfilming, scanning, and entering historical sources. Their motivation has been twofold:

1. their own need for access to what is not locally available to them
2. as well as others’ needs for access to what is locally available to them

Many cultural institutions are currently experimenting with “crowdsourcing,” where volunteers collectively contribute to completing a larger task in small segments. There are ongoing discussions about how to motivate more individuals to participate (and in recent years, whether artificial intelligence could be employed instead). Here, we advocate for a focus on motivation based on mutual aid and support to address the common information need and a deeper desire to practice history in a manner that incorporates diverse narratives and historical source materials.

Conflicts between established historical narratives and the many other stories that have been hidden, forgotten, or never told, often pose a dilemma for the outreach of cultural institutions. Here we often talk about sensitive topics, negotiating identity, and caring for each other. family historians, as a group, have extensive experience navigating contentious stories, both in relation to their own families and in relation to the rest of society.  

Finally, we have a cooling front moving over cultural institutions in the form of legal and ethical management of cultural heritage. In my view, it is important to balance between two often opposing risks.

On one hand, there is the risk of exposure, e.g., individual harm through the revelation of identity or participation, as well as infringement of rights or reputation. The risk of individual harm through exposure can also have a significant collective effect, where we seek to distance ourselves to avoid the same fate.

On the other hand, there is the risk of erasure, e.g., where groups’ histories are forgotten because they are deleted, overlooked, or never documented. The collective damage through erasure has a significant effect on individual identity, as well as opportunities and treatment in society. Consider how much difference it makes for our perception of things we regard as historically founded, as opposed to things we perceive as new and thus outside the norm.

Family historians often take a more pragmatic approach to this balance. Family history necessarily involves processing and sharing identifiable information or documents and images that are potentially copyright-protected. Without this, there would be no family history. Erasure of their family history is not just a distant risk for the family historian—it is a reality that motivates almost all family history. But the risk of exposure can also be very personal and involves protecting and staying on good terms with living family members.

Here, cultural institutions often must pursue a more cautious strategy, leaning on local and national cultural policy currents. If the dominant currents focus only on the risk of exposure, they often must follow suit. As a result, there is a greater risk of erasure of diverse stories. A partnership between cultural institutions and family historians also has great potential to influence cultural policy currents in a direction that also incorporates cultural heritage perspectives and creates a balance between these two risks.

1. Redmann, Gail R. 1993. ‘Archivists and Genealogists: The Trend towards Peaceful Coexistence’. Archival Issues 18 (2): 121–32. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/45678/MA18_2_5.pdf ↩︎
2. Rhoads, James B. 1979. ‘The Importance of Family History to Our Society’. The Public Historian 1 (3): 6–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/3377529. ↩︎
3. Sinko, Peggy Tuck, and Scott N Peters. 1983. ‘A Survey of Genealogists at The Newberry Library’. LIBRARY TRENDS, 14. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/7264 ↩︎
4. Yakel, Elizabeth. 2004. ‘Seeking Information, Seeking Connections, Seeking Meaning: Genealogists and Family Historians. Genealogy, Family History, Information Seeking, Archives, Personal Information Management’. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 10 (1). http://www.informationr.net/ir/10-1/paper205.html ↩︎
5. Friday, Kate. 2014. ‘Learning from E-Family History: A Model of Online Family Historian Research Behaviour’. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 19 (4). http://www.informationr.net/ir/19-4/paper641.html ↩︎
6. Roued, Henriette, Helene Castenbrandt, and Bárbara Ana Revuelta-Eugercios. 2023. ‘Search, Save and Share: Family Historians’ Engagement Practices with Digital Platforms’. Archival Science 23 (2): 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-022-09404-4 ↩︎
7. De Groot, Jerome. 2015. ‘International Federation for Public History Plenary Address: On family history’. The Public Historian 37 (3): 102–27. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2015.37.3.102. ↩︎
8. Barnwell, Ashley. 2018. ‘Hidden Heirlooms: Keeping Family Secrets across Generations’. Journal of Sociology 54 (3): 446–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317727878. ↩︎
9. Basu, Paul. “My Own Island Home: The Orkney Homecoming.” Journal of Material Culture 9, nr. 1 (2004): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183504041088. ↩︎
10. Edwards, Jeanette. 2018. ‘A Feel for Genealogy: “Family Treeing” in the North of England.’ Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology 83 (4): 724–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2017.1322115. ↩︎
11. Saar, Martin. 2002. ‘Genealogy and Subjectivity’. European Journal of Philosophy 10 (2): 231–45. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/revolution1313/files/2022/06/Martin-Saar-Genealogy-and-Subjectivity.pdf ↩︎
12. Hackstaff, Karla B. 2010. ‘Family Genealogy: A Sociological Imagination Reveals Intersectional Relations’. Sociology Compass 4 (8): 658–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00307.x ↩︎
13. Sleeter, Christine. 2020. ‘Critical Family History: An Introduction’. Genealogy 4 (2): 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy4020064 ↩︎
14. Scodari, Christine. 2013. ‘Roots, Representation, and Resistance? Family History Media & Culture through a Critical Lens’. The Journal of American Culture 36 (3): 206–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacc.12025. ↩︎