3.2 Genealogists and Family Historians

The relationship that exists between genealogists or family historians and libraries, and therefore librarians has been regularly written about by those in the LIS field such as Latham (2003) though is it only in recent years that research on genealogists or family historians as a “user group” has become more common. This probably reflects the growing popularity of genealogy with Litzer (1997) stating that it is “one of Americans [sic] most popular hobbies.”(para. 2). The idea that this popularity is increasing is an oft repeated one in the mainly North American based literature and statistics quoted by Kuglin (2004) suggest that this is also the case in New Zealand. Consequently, a body of research into the needs of this group is now beginning to develop though it is has largely been limited to genealogists in North America and has not, so far, concentrated on indigenous populations. Some research is concerned with how genealogists carry out their research and what their needs, attitudes and motivations are. Research in this area has often used surveys to gather data, such as those by Lambert (1998), Litzer (1997), Sinko and Peters (1983) and Drake (2001).

Despite the long association that genealogists and family historians have had with libraries and archives surprising little research has looked at what sorts of information seeking behaviours these customers utilise, that is, what strategies genealogists use in trying to find the family history information they need. Duff and Johnson (2003) conducted a series of in-depth interviews with American professional genealogists and determined that this group tended not to use librarian-produced finding aids, and tended to rely “more heavily on colleagues or an informal network than on archivists” (pg. 94). Duff and Johnson also found that these highly experienced genealogists were very adept at re-framing their information need, such as the name of an individual being researched, into a search for the kind of record that might contain that information, such as a baptism or marriage record. This research was conducted within the context of the use of archives rather than libraries, as well as focusing on experienced users. Kuglin (2004) finds some similarities within the use of libraries in New Zealand specifically in that family historians and genealogists tend to be “quite independent researchers” (pg. 67) with relatively low use of finding aids. The information seeking behaviour of whakapapa researchers has however not be investigated in any of the current literature.

Research on genealogists often focuses on generating a genealogist “profile” and determining their level of involvement in genealogical research. Lambert (1999), Yakel (2004), Drake (2001), and Kuglin (2004) all incorporate a profiling aspect in their research. Drake’s survey sought to elicit information about genealogists themselves as well as their level of involvement in genealogy. Drake’s was the only study to use an online survey and notably received the highest number of respondents of the three. Kuglin (2004) dedicates a portion of her research to creating a genealogist “profile” with data gained through a survey distributed in several New Zealand libraries. Each of these studies, though using different methods of delivery, often in different countries all paint a similar genealogist “portrait” of a genealogist as an older woman who spends a signficant amount of time on her hobby and is relatively experienced in family history research.
Kuglin’s (2004) research stands out as the sole piece of research on genealogists and their use of library services that is set in New Zealand. Apart from creating a genealogist “profile” the study sought to determinine how genealogists research in libraries and how experienced they are, in order to better understand their informational needs and how to address them. Her conclusion that genealogists would benefit from collaboration between libraries and genealogical societies mirrors Litzer’s (1997) findings. Unfortunately the demographic data gained from informants in this study was restricted to age and gender therefore cultural considerations as relates to genealogists researching Māori family history were not illuminated. Furthermore, Kuglin admits that her survey did not capture sufficient data from inexperienced genealogists and that it paints an incomplete picture that warrants further investigaton. Kuglin’s study is also limited geographically to the North Island, and can therefore only represent a part of the overall picture for the country.