When I first set out to determine whether Uriah Johnson was truly the father of my ancestor Harrison Johnson, I knew I needed more than just a casual approach to DNA testing. I needed a structured research plan that would either confirm or refute my hypothesis. Today, I want to share how I developed and executed that plan—and how you can create one for your own research challenges.

Start with a Clear Hypothesis

The foundation of any good research plan is a clear, testable hypothesis. Mine was straightforward:

Uriah Johnson (born circa 1771) was the biological father of Harrison Johnson (born circa 1813).

This hypothesis was based on previous documentary research that had identified several pieces of indirect evidence:

Census records showing a male of Harrison’s age in Uriah’s household
Shared migration patterns from Tennessee to Missouri
Naming patterns across proposed siblings
An unsourced family book listing similar children for Uriah

Having this clearly defined hypothesis gave me a specific question to answer through DNA testing.

Planning Tip: Write down your hypothesis in a single sentence. This helps focus your research and prevents you from getting sidetracked by interesting but irrelevant information.

Identify What’s Already Known

Before jumping into new DNA testing, I inventoried what was already proven:

An 1899 letter from William K. Johnson to his son directly stated that William’s father Abington was the son of Uriah Johnson and Jane Carrell. This gave me one definitively proven child of Uriah.
The unsourced family book Our Pioneer Heritage listed several children of Uriah and Jane, including Abington, Tilmon, Billington, Mary Ann, and Manerva. It also mentioned “Herrington” as a possible son based on family tradition.
Census, land, and marriage records supported connections between these individuals, particularly Harrison, Billington, and Mary Ann.

Understanding what was already proven helped me identify what gaps DNA needed to fill.

Set Clear Research Limitations

Every research project has constraints. Being honest about these upfront helped me design a realistic plan:

Time constraints: I limited my research to a four-month period as part of a study group
Available testers: I could use my own DNA, my siblings’, and several cousins’ results
Types of DNA: I focused on autosomal DNA since Y-DNA wasn’t accessible through my direct line
Number of matches: I limited analysis to 2-3 matches per collateral line to keep the project manageable

By acknowledging these limitations, I could create a focused approach rather than an open-ended fishing expedition.

Select Strategic Test Takers

DNA testing is most powerful when you test strategically. I identified eight primary test takers:

Myself
My two full siblings
Three paternal first cousins
Two paternal second cousins

This group provided:

Multiple testers from my direct line of descent from Harrison Johnson
Different genetic perspectives on our shared ancestry
A baseline of confirmed relationships to validate my analysis techniques

Having multiple known relatives as test takers gave me confidence in identifying more distant connections.

Find the Right DNA Matches to Study

Rather than analyzing hundreds of random matches, I sought specific types of DNA matches:

Descendants of Abington Johnson (Uriah’s confirmed son)
Descendants of other purported children of Uriah (Tilmon, Billington, Mary Ann, Manerva)
Multiple descendants from each line, preferably from different branches

I identified seventeen key DNA matches representing these lines, giving me a wide base of comparison while keeping the project manageable.

Use Multiple Analysis Techniques

To strengthen my conclusions, I employed several different analysis methods:

Shared cM analysis: Comparing the amount of shared DNA against expected ranges for our theoretical relationships
Network clustering: Using Gephi to identify genetic communities among my matches
DNA coverage calculations: Estimating how much of each ancestor’s genome was represented in my test group
Segment analysis: Examining specific DNA segments shared with different matches (when available)

Each method provided an independent perspective, making my conclusions more robust.

Document Everything Meticulously

Throughout my research, I maintained meticulous documentation:

Citation information for each DNA match
Expected vs. actual shared cM for each relationship
Screenshots of match comparisons
Network graph visualizations
Coverage percentage calculations

This documentation isn’t just for my own reference—it creates a trail that others can follow to validate my work.

Draw Careful Conclusions

When all my analysis was complete, I could confidently conclude that:

The autosomal DNA results for eight test takers and seventeen DNA matches show a strong probability that Harrison, Tilmon, Billington, Mary Ann, and Manerva were the siblings of Abington Johnson. Since Abington Johnson was proven to be the son of Uriah, all six were almost certainly the biological children of Uriah Johnson.

This conclusion is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, all pointing to the same result.

Plan for Future Research

Even though I reached a solid conclusion, my research plan includes next steps:

Identify DNA matches who descend from Uriah Johnson’s siblings to prove his father was Joel Johnson
Identify the parents of Jane Carrell through DNA
Look for additional descendants from each child line to increase overall DNA coverage

Research is never truly finished—there are always new questions to explore!

Your DNA Research Plan Template

Based on my experience, here’s a template you can use for your own DNA research plans:

Define your hypothesis: What specific relationship are you trying to prove or disprove?
Identify known facts: What documentary evidence already exists?
Set your limitations: What resources and time constraints will affect your research?
Select test takers: Which known relatives can provide DNA samples?
Target specific matches: What DNA matches would help prove your hypothesis?
Choose analysis methods: What techniques will you use to evaluate the evidence?
Document your process: How will you record your findings?
Draw careful conclusions: What does the evidence actually prove?
Plan next steps: Where will your research go from here?

A structured approach like this transforms DNA testing from a recreational activity into a powerful genealogical research tool.

This post is adapted from one of my professional genealogical research reports. The blog draft was prepared with AI assistance from Claude (Anthropic) and reviewed and approved by me prior to publication.