I know this runs counter to our internal motivation for genealogy, but sometimes we need to pause our genealogical research. Taking a break from cognitively challenging tasks like correlating DNA evidence and documentary research gives our subconscious time to process the vast amount of detailed information and complex relationships between data points.
As a marketing professor, I teach my students how to develop creative ideas for advertising campaigns that resonate with consumers and are at the same time relevant for the product. Yet, my students often struggle to correlate collected research and turn it into a campaign that will excite consumers and deliver results. Brainstorming and ideation are not easy tasks whether in marketing or genealogy.
Genealogy tasks are not so different from marketing strategy. Answers rarely present themselves in a single document or with one DNA match. We must connect the dots across varying types of research and build arguments that stands up to the proof standards established by our genealogy community.
In this article, I apply to genealogy the same marketing skills I teach my students when developing creative advertising campaigns. Sometimes you must walk away from your work to better correlate collected information. You need to hit the “Genealogy Pause” button.
Creativity in Advertising
In developing effective advertising campaigns, I teach my students a 5-step creative process developed by James Webb Young, a former advertising agency executive, who said,
“The production of ideas is just as definite a process as the production of Fords; the production of ideas, too, runs an assembly line.”[1]
Young’s process follows five steps:
- Immersion – gathering research and immersing yourself in the problem.
- Digestion – reviewing information and wrestling with it in the mind.
- Incubation – removing the problem from your conscious mind and giving it to the unconscious to do the work.
- Illumination – discovery of the idea – the eureka or aha moment.
- Verification – evaluating the idea to see if it solves the problem and shaping it for practical usefulness.
The value of Young’s process, and models like it, is that it offers an organized method to tackle a marketing problem. These same five steps can be applied to genealogical problems, too. In fact, the incubation phase, or what I call a Genealogy Pause, is perhaps too frequently sidelined in favor expediency or excitement for an elusive ancestor.
Applying Creativity Research to Genealogy
Step 1: Immersion
As genealogists, this is probably where we spend most of our time – online and offline. We evaluate DNA matches, search for records online and in libraries and archives, and speak with family members. We collect a wide variety of information so we can confidently resolve our research objective.
Step 2: Digestion
After immersion, this step requires us to study and correlate information gathered in the preceding step. It’s a very cognitively demanding task where we evaluate the sources and evidence found in records and use DNA tools like chromosome browsers, cluster analysis, and genetic networks. This intense processing of information is necessary for the next Step.
Step 3: Incubation – the Genealogy Pause
This is the point where we close our laptops, put down our pens, and walk away from our desks. We reengage with our families who have been patiently waiting for us to emerge from the office. Incubation is not a one-hour break or even a much-needed date night, but rather an extended period probably measured in days or weeks.
During the Genealogy Pause, our unconscious mind takes over. It rapidly assesses and categorizes information and automates repetitive actions, which can make future decision-making instinctual and performed with minimal conscious thought.[2]
The unconscious mind works with the conscious mind to provide rapid assessments and responses, which can be very helpful for genealogy. Many of the genealogical problems we investigate have the same patterns and rely on the same sources, but involve different people, places, and perspectives.
If we don’t take some time to let the unconscious mind work, we may not be able to have that aha or lightbulb moment in Step 4.
Step 4: Illumination
Did you ever hear someone say, “the idea just came to me in the shower this morning”? This is how illumination works. Because we previously correlated data (digestion) obtained from our research (immersion) and let our unconscious mind organize the information (incubation, or the Genealogy Pause), we can now discover a path forward to resolve our genealogical problem (illumination). Despite the illusion of illumination, it’s not without effort.
While there’s contention for exactly how creativity and the aha moment materialize through the interplay of the conscious and unconscious mind,[3] what is understood is that it relies on the activation of the right hemisphere of our brain (creative processing) while the left hemisphere (logical processing) is slightly occupied.
When we engage in tasks requiring minimal conscious effort, like taking a shower or a walk, it occupies the logical left hemisphere permitting the creative right hemisphere to become active. This allows our minds to wander where the right hemisphere can take advantage of the concepts and information stored in our unconscious mind from Step 3 (incubation).
For genealogy, we can think more creatively by tapping into the previously learned and observed genealogy concepts, methods, and patterns stored in our unconscious mind and apply them to the current problem in our conscious. Because our left hemisphere is minimally occupied, it can weaken some logical but distracting thoughts in favor of more creative thinking.
To be successful here, you need to identify what tasks can minimally engage your left brain so the right brain can help you problem solve. The proverbial shower is an obvious choice, but there are many other activities that can nominally occupy the left brain. There’s no one activity that is better than another – it depends on our own personal interests outside of genealogy.
For me, I have two left brain tasks where my best creative thinking occurs. The first is running on the treadmill at Orange Theory, which is a gym where the coach tells you what to do for 50 minutes. The only thing I need to do is keep my legs running and listen for the occasional instruction to run faster or slower, which I admittedly frequently miss because I’m so deep in thought. I’ve had several major genealogical breakthroughs while on the treadmill, one of which I will briefly mention at the end of this post.
The second left brain task I rely on is during twilight sleep when I’m waking in the morning. It’s probably not quite a left brain activity exactly (perhaps the left brain is still asleep), but my right brain can assert itself where the genealogical path to discovery becomes clearer. However, the challenge here is to not fall back asleep where, like dreams, they can be easily forgotten as we become involved in our day. To overcome this, I leave a pen and pad next to the bed for note taking.
Step 5. Verification
Once an idea or a path forward is illuminated that might aid problem solving, the solution must be evaluated, critiqued, and further shaped to make it useful for the unique set of genealogical facts gathered in Step 1.
It’s important to note that the evaluated idea is not the answer to your genealogical problem – like who is my 2x great grandfather – but rather how you interpret the gathered research. Taking a Genealogy Pause helps you see the pattern that’s always been there or interpret a key piece of evidence differently.
Not all ideas are fruitful, but I’ll take an unproductive idea any day than to be so overwhelmed by the enormity of a problem that I never attempt to bring it to its conclusion.
An Example in Brief: It Came to Me on the Treadmill
Readers of my blog certainly know the recent 18-month obsession in trying to discover the parents of my 4x great grandfather, William Hill (1775-1836). I recently hit the Genealogy Pause button this summer to digest the collected evidence.
Previously, through cluster analysis, I identified several unlinked family clusters pointing to a possible Dorchester County, Maryland ancestral location for William Hill. I used Y-DNA and network graphs to confirm that autosomal DNA matches were in fact aligned with my Hill ancestry. I also increased my ancestor’s DNA coverage by reviewing the DNA match lists for several other cousins descending from William Hill through other child lines. Needless to say, I spent considerable time in the immersion and digestion steps, but I could not see a path forward. I was overwhelmed by the amount of data (see below).
Then last month on the treadmill, it hit me – focus on the unlinked family cluster with the less common surname and with more observable ties to Dorchester County. Of all the surnames associated with my research (see above), McKeel (or Keel as some later descendants dropped the ‘Mc’) had the greatest potential.
- McKeel is a rarer name meaning it’s more easily searchable in records;
- A McKeel and a Hill family shared a fence line in Dorchester County; and
- Of all the unlinked family clusters, the McKeel matches shared the most DNA with descendants of William Hill (as much as 44 cM).
Beginning the creative process again, I outlined three research activities to re-immerse myself in the problem (Step 1):
- Expand the DNA coverage for the progenitor of the McKeel unlinked family cluster, Joseph McKeel (1776-1864) with the hopeful aim of connecting him to a McKeel family in Dorchester. Two descendants of Joseph McKeel shared their DNA match lists with me.
- Build a Dorchester County McKeel family tree starting with the progenitor, John McKeel, who arrived in the mid 1600s, and construct the tree to roughly the year 1800 (recall William Hill was born about 1775 and Joseph McKeel about 1776). I principally relied on land deed, probate, and court records.
- Reevaluate all previously collected documentary research especially where McKeels and Hills appeared on the same record.
After digesting the data (Step 2), I discovered several key pieces of information that has brought me closer to answering the question of who William Hill’s parents probably are.
Expanded DNA Coverage
Reviewing the match lists for the descendants of Joseph McKeel confirmed the identity Joseph McKeel’s wife as Elizabeth Wike,[4] which was also supported by documentary evidence.[5] Elizabeth Wike has no relation to the Hills. Therefore, the Hill connection must be through Joseph McKeel rather than his wife.
Also discovered among the matches from the descendants of Joseph McKeel are matches to the same previously identified Linn and Kentucky Hill unlinked family clusters found among descendants of William Hill (1775-1836) shown in the above image. This is an important finding in that it may nullify a previous assumption my left brain was hanging on to.
Because the McKeel matches found among descendants of William Hill did not match the Kentucky Hills, I previously believed that the McKeels might have married into the Hill family in more recent generations not shared by the Kentucky Hills. Now it seems that that most, if not all, unlinked family clusters presented earlier have Hill DNA. This will later help to reconstruct how these unlinked family clusters all connect with one another.
Because of the increased coverage provided by McKeel descendants, the composition of the Hill genetic network now looks different than previously presented. Also, it’s worth pointing out that of the two descendants of Joseph McKeel who shared their DNA match lists with me, only one of them had DNA matches to the Linn and Kentucky Hill clusters – once again stressing that DNA inheritance is random.
For the descendants of Joseph McKeel, no DNA matches or clusters of matches have yet been identified for the McKeel side of Joseph’s McKeel ancestry. Nevertheless, eliminating the theory that Joseph McKeel’s wife might have been a Hill was productive as was finding matches to the Linn and Kentucky Hill clusters. Assuming Joseph was from Dorchester County, Maryland, the next step is to determine where Joseph might fit into the McKeel family tree.
Dorchester McKeel Family Tree
The Dorchester County McKeel family tree does not appear to be very large especially for male McKeels who could have carried the surname forward. Only two of the four sons of the McKeel immigrant had male children. It must be restated, I am assuming that Joseph McKeel is affiliated with the Dorchester County, Maryland McKeels and not another family from another part of the country. While it is possible Joseph McKeel is not from Dorchester, it is perhaps too coincidental that the DNA connection is not from the McKeels and Hills who shared a property line for more than 100 years.
When interpreting the above image, I kept in mind that Joseph McKeel was born about 1776 in Pennsylvania.[6] As such, his father should have arrived in Pennsylvania about that time or earlier. No records have yet been found for any McKeel in Pennsylvania around this time, but records are sparse for this time period or not yet easily searchable.
There are two McKeel branches descending from the progenitor, John McKeel. One lived in the Fishing Creek area adjacent to the Hills. This branch, whose progenitor was John’s son Thomas I, appeared to be more well-off as they owned considerable acreage and many were justices of the peace or sub-sheriffs. While no reliable records indicate most of their births, many of their deaths were probated where children were listed.
Only one viable candidate is possible on the Fishing Creek branch, John II, who is highlighted with a yellow star. He sold all his inherited land by 1763[7], and no other records can reliably be found for him. The other two candidates in this branch remained in Dorchester. Thomas was in the county at least through 1783[8], and John died in Dorchester in 1798.[9]
The other branch, whose progenitor was John’s son Edmund, appeared to be less well-off because of several premature deaths in the paternal line. This group sold off most of their land by 1739 but remained in the area. They resided first around Marsh Creek (also known then as Marshey Creek) until 1739 but by 1761 resided somewhere between Marshyhope Creek and the Nanticoke River. At the time, both residences were in Northern Dorchester County but in what would later become Caroline County in 1774.
This branch is not well documented because they had little or no property to probate. Still, I was able assemble several descendants from multiple record sources. However, some descendants are likely missing and therefore I could not reliably identify potential candidates. I do note that Thomas McKeel (1745-1821) and James McKeel are of the age to be the father of Joseph McKeel (1776-1864), but they remained in Maryland making their candidacy less likely.[10]
Revisited Documentary Research
I recalled that there were a group of documents where the Hills and the McKeels appeared together on probate records in Dorchester. When William Hill III died in 1760, Thomas McKeel III (great grandson of John McKeel the progenitor – see earlier family tree chart) was chosen as the guardian for John Hill, who was a minor son of William Hill III.[11] When William Hill III’s wife, Elizabeth, died 10 years later in 1770, the same Thomas McKeel III administered Elizabeth’s estate.[12] While it is far from certain, it seems possible that these may be the generations where the Hill-McKeel connection resides.
Could have Elizabeth Hill been born McKeel? No marriage record exists for William Hill III nor do any birth, baptism, or marriage records exist for his children that might identify the mother’s maiden name. However, there are potential leads.
In the 1728 will of Thomas McKeel I, who was the grandfather of Thomas McKeel III, he mentions a daughter Elizabeth who appears unmarried at the time his will was written (highlighted with the red star in the above image). This Elizabeth would have been an aunt to Thomas McKeel III.
Yet, the theory that Elizabeth might be a McKeel seems less probable now that DNA matches were found between descendants of Joseph McKeel and descendants of the Kentucky Hills. Previously, only descendants of William Hill (1775-1836) shared matches with those descending from Joseph McKeel and the Kentucky Hills. Y-DNA suggests the common ancestor between William Hill and the Kentucky Hills was probably born prior to 1750, which is before the generation associated with William Hill III and his wife Elizabeth.
While not the only possible hypothesis, it is now more probable that a female Hill married a McKeel rather than a female McKeel marrying a Hill. In support of this supposition, Elizabeth appeared to have two unmarried daughters when she died in 1770.[13] Regardless, the observation that the Hills and the McKeels were neighbors for more than 100 years and served as administrators in Hill probates in the mid-1700s cannot be ignored.
Conclusion
After a successful first Genealogy Pause, I have now entered a second Genealogy Pause where I hope a new path forward can be ascertained from the recent analysis. Preliminarily, John McKeel II does have face validity as the potential ancestor of Joseph McKeel. Joseph McKeel’s second son was named John, and Thomas McKeel III, who was involved in the Hill probates, is similarly on this branch and a first cousin to John McKeel II.
However, this theory must be vetted against the other collected DNA and documentary research. For example, if Elizabeth Hill (d. 1770) was born Elizabeth McKeel, do the relationships among the other unlinked family clusters presented earlier still hold genetically? Conversely, if John McKeel II married a Hill, do the same unlinked family cluster relationships similarly hold? Taking a Genealogy Pause and permitting my unconscious mind and right brain to do its work helped me to see the genealogical problem much more clearly. The vast amount of collected data ceased to be overwhelming. Only a future blog post will indicate whether the second Genealogy Pause proved productive. Stay tuned…
Sources
[1] Young, James Webb (1975). A Technique for Producing Ideas, 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Crain Books, p. 42.
[2] Qureshi, Nida (2024). “Exploring the Human Mind: Conscious and Unconscious Thoughts,” Scientific Research Reports, 1(2): 66-74.
[3] Campbell, Stephen R. (2012). “The Aha! Moment at the Nexus of Mind and Brian,” in B. Czarnocha and W. Baker (eds.) Creativity of an Aha! Moment and Mathematics Education, Boston, MA: Brill/Sense.
[4] Joseph McKeel had four children, namely Catherine (b. 1802), Joseph Jr. (b. 1806), John W. (b. 1809), and Magaret (b. 1815). Several genetic networks were identified that included the above four children and ancestors and/or descendants of Elizabeth Wike’s parents.
[5] Pennsylvania, U.S. Wills and Probate Records (1683-1993), Christopher Wick (1814), West Pennsboro, Vol. I, p. 62-65, Cumberland County Register of Wills; database with an image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 13 Sept 2025).
[6] 1860 U.S. census, Stark County, Ohio, population schedule, Bethlehem, p. 109, image 36 of 63, Jos M Kyle (Joseph McKeel); database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 8 Sept 2025); NARA microfilm publication M653, roll 29. Joseph’s son, John W. Keel, lived to the 1880 census and indicated his father was born in Pennsylvania. 1880 U.S. census, Bureau County, Illinois, population schedule, Dover, p. 88a, image 15 of 17, John W. Keel; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 8 Sept. 2025); NARA microfilm publication, roll 177.
[7] Dorchester County, Maryland, Land Deeds, John McKeel and Robert How to John Bromell (1759), vol. 16 Old, p. 188, Cambridge, MD. And Maryland Provincial Court, Court Records, John McKeel to Timothy Lockright (1763), vol. 55, p. 523, Baltimore City, MD.
[8] Dorchester County, Maryland, Assessment Tax Index, Thomas McKeel (1783), Maryland State Archives, MSA S1437.
[9] McAllister, James A. Jr. (1968), Records of Great Choptank Parish, Cambridge, Maryland, Volume 2.
[10] Caroline County, Maryland, Assessment Records, Thomas McKeel (1783), Lower Choptank Hundred District, p. 52, Maryland State Archives, S1161-3-6. And 1790 U.S. census, Talbot County, Maryland, population schedule, p. 82, image 5 of 21, James McKeel; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 8 Sept 2025); NARA microfilm publication M637, roll 3.
[11] Dorchester County, Maryland, Land Deeds, John Hill and Thomas McKeel (1767), vol. 21 Old, p. 451, Cambridge, MD.
[12] Dorchester County, Maryland, Prerogative Court, Elizabeth Hill (1770), Accounts, vol. 7 WD, p. 224-225, Cambridge, MD; Maryland State Archives, S531.
[13] IBID.