I’ve long been a fan of the four-step problem solving process as laid out by mathematician George Polya:

• Understand the problem
• Design a plan
• Execute the plan
• Evaluate

There are a variety of other approaches, with fancy charts, schematics, and the like to illustrate, but it really boils down to these four things. Understanding the problem is the most involved step of all, including, but not limited to:

• Knowing about all extant sources
• Understanding the history of the area
• Being aware of compiled materials on the family
• Being aware of the contemporary and current political boundaries
• Knowing the religious/spiritual persuasion of the people being researched
• Knowing the social class, educational level, and economic status of the people being researched
• Being aware of contemporary laws related to inheritance, property ownership, marriage, etc.
• Knowing and being able to understand the language in which the contemporary records are written

And that’s even before you’ve made a plan. And “understanding the problem” is the part of the process that takes the longest. It’s also that stage some searchers bypass. Researchers may not phrase their research process in this way, but they are all aware of the importance of the items on this list.

Planning usually involves accessing records or previously compiled research.

Executing a plan involves performing research and tracking that process for citation and analytical purposes.

Evaluating involves analyzing what has been located within the framework of the understanding that has taken place in the “understand the problem step.”

Of course the “exhaustive search” and the Genealogical Proof Standard espoused by the Board for Certification of Genealogists fit into this framework.

I’m not a big fan of constantly creating a new paradigm.