Research Design
Part 2: The AstroSignature Model

by Terri McCartney

View comments on this article

I'm energized by our renewed interested in astrology research. If you subscribe to the ISAR E-newsletter, you are aware of the dialogue that has been taking place about methodologies for conducting and standards for evaluating astrology research. It's apparent that as a community, we are united in our agreement that our research designs and methodologies must honor the integrity of the astrological paradigm. In this article I will outline the research process that fuels the AstroSignature research model and critique it by the standards that ensure quality astrological research

The AstroSignature Model

The first two steps of the research process involve selecting a topic to investigate and conducting a literature review. The third step in the research process, formulating research objectives and methodology, is driven by the research design. The objective that is inherent to the AstroSignature model is to advance an astrological signature for the topic being investigated. An AstroSignature sets forth multiple astrological factors that have been found in the individual horoscopes of a collective of people or events that share a common experience—be it a vocation, a disease, trait, preference, event, etc. These multiple factors form the criteria by which individual horoscopes are analyzed and scored to determine the degree to which they fit the astrological patterns that are being tested.

In essence, the AstroSignature sets forth a theory about the cosmic factors that are believed to interact and have influence when a particular phenomenon is present. For example, if the topic being investigated is psychic ability, the AstroSignature outlines (in the form of multiple rules) the astrological symbolism believed to be emphasized in the horoscope when psychic ability is demonstrated. Horoscopes are evaluated by the criteria set forth in the AstroSignature and assigned a score by how well they fit the AstroSignature for psychic ability. It is assumed that those people with psychic ability will score well above the average score earned by those with no demonstrated psychic ability.

AstroSignatures provide us with a means to measure and test our theories about the qualities and characteristics we attribute to the astrological symbolism. When there are contradictions in opinion about what astrological factors have the greatest influence in a particular phenomenon, an AstroSignature can assist us in identifying what is most prevalent.

The challenge is to identify the relevant astrological symbolism that will be used to build the AstroSignature. This necessitates both a qualitative and quantitative analysis. For example, if our topic is psychic ability then our analysis involves both case study (a qualitative approach) and comparing the chart factors of those well-known for their psychic abilities to the horoscopes of a general population of people with no known psychic ability. It's important to compare to ensure that what we are finding in the charts of the psychics occurs significantly more frequently than by chance or random error. Such an evaluation necessitates counting, a quantitative analysis.

In step four, we collect data. We are conscientious about collecting reliable data to represent both our psychic test group and comparison group because these sample groups and their size influence the validity of our research endeavor. David Cochrane has published guidelines for doing astrological research and notes the importance of ensuring that the experimental group is "highly homogenous."¹ That is, narrow down our criteria for selecting our experimental group. For example, scientist is a broad category and while all scientists might share similarity in chart dynamics, narrowing the experimental group of scientists to chemists (a more homogenous group) might render different results than studying astronomers.

In our example of psychic ability, the Rodden database was used to identify 80 well-known psychics with reliable birth data (a Rodden rating of B or above). Of these 80 psychics, 64 have a Rodden rating of A or above. The AstroDatabank software was then used to create a control group 20 times larger than the psychic group (i.e., control group consisting of 1600 records). The AstroDatabank control group closely mirrors our psychic experimental group in order to control for uneven distribution of astronomical realities.² The larger our comparison or control group, the less likely it is that the things we find to be significant will have occurred by random error or chance. In the same vein, the greater the homogeny of our test group, the greater the degree we are able to transfer or generalize our findings to other similar groups.

Once we have our data, our next step is to analyze it both qualitatively and quantitatively. This fifth step of the research process involves a circular qualitative and quantitative analysis, one naturally feeding into and supporting the other. A common qualitative technique, the case study, provides one means for analyzing the data. That is, to study the horoscopes and look for patterns occurring in the charts of the psychics not often found in the charts of the comparison group. Another option is to conduct a statistical univariate comparison analysis ³ of the individual astrological factors to identify specific patterns occurring in the charts of the psychics significantly more often than they are found in the charts of the control group. You don't have to be a statistical maverick to conduct this sort of analysis, the factor analysis feature in AstroDatabank 4.0 will do it for you.

Often research is driven by a desire to prove or disprove specific assumptions or hypothesis. Another approach is to allow the general astrological hypothesis – that there is a correlation between cosmic realities and human realities – to drive the research without a specific hypothesis. In essence, it's assumptionless. It is to ask the data to show us what is significant. That is what a univariate comparison analysis does for us. It shows us what is occurring significantly more frequently in the charts of the psychics than it is occurring in our control group. More on this next month when I'll delve more deeply into the intricacies of data analysis, demonstrate more clearly the circular relationship that exists between qualitative and quantitative analysis and outline the process of building an AstroSignature.

Judging the Value and Usefulness of the AstroSignature Model

There are astrologers who have little faith in the quantitative analysis to render any valuable or useful results. This is understandable in light of our research experience with quantitative methods in the past. Early attempts involving quantitative methods often failed to demonstrate significance because only univariate analysis was used. New computer technology has made it easier to do multivariate analysis that takes into account the interrelationships that exist among the various parts of the horoscope. The AstroSignature involves a multi-factor analysis.

Glenn Perry suggests that there are six basic philosophical principles that constitute general rules of interpretation and "any experimental design that violates even one of these rules must be considered unsound."⁴ These six principles are:

1. Meaning is a function of context.
2. Personality is an emergent property.
3. The meaning of chart symbols contains an inescapable ambiguity.
4. Astrological phenomena are synchronistic.
5. Astrological causation is circular and teleological.
6. The horoscope symbolizes an open, evolving, indeterminate system.

In conducting single-factor research, astrologers have violated several of these principles. The AstroSignature research model involves multi-factor analysis and therefore honors the complexity of the whole system symbolized by the chart. In essence, we can't isolate factors in the chart and forget the inherent, multifaceted relationships that exist among the parts of the whole. Perry's first principle reminds us that the context of the whole is established by the relationship that exists among its various parts. The second principle follows from the first to remind us that what we are studying is an emergent property of the whole chart. At the same time, I believe that our experience also demonstrates that particular parts have greater input into particular outcomes than do others. Our job is to identify those prevalent multi-factors and the AstroSignature assists us in doing this.

The third principle cautions us against boxing in our symbols. Astrological symbols operate on multi-dimensions simultaneously and the result is a wide range of possibilities. The AstroSignature embraces the multi-dimensional reality symbolized in the chart. It allows us to score a chart on how strongly it resonates with the multiple factors most commonly found when the phenomenon or outcome we are studying exists. In simple terms, while we can't say that one factor such as Mars conjoined the Ascendant is a signature for boxing prowess, I believe we can set forth a multi-factor signature containing 30-40 astrological factors commonly found in the charts of successful boxers that sets these boxers apart from the general population. The AstroSignature provides us with deeper insights into how the diverse parts of the whole symbolized by the chart interact and resonate with the particular phenomenon or outcomes, such as boxing talent.

Perry's principles four and five emphasize the acausal nature of astrological reality. The parts of the whole of one chart (the microcosm) simultaneously exist within larger wholes (macrocosms). There is no identifiable separation between within and without. As the fundamental astrological tenet states: as above, so below. A state of mutual reciprocity of influence exists between the inner and the outer. The key point here is that we can't assume singular or linear lines of cause and effect. With astrology we assume correlations. The AstroSignature model accounts for the correlations that we are able to identify within the understanding that it is impossible to account for all possible influences that result in a particular phenomenon or outcome.

The final principle states that the horoscope symbolizes an indeterminate system. It reinforces the previous five principles to remind us that neither the microcosm nor the macrocosm is static. Instead, they are ever evolving in a dynamic relationship. Additionally, there is no way for us to know just by looking at a chart if it belongs to a person, collective, place, creature, event, etc. With astrological research we are attempting to define and measure concepts, attributes, motivations and other intangible, indeterminate variables. And certainly the dependability of the research findings rest on how well we are measuring what we say we are measuring. This is why it is imperative to integrate the qualitative analysis with the quantitative to ensure our AstroSignature is astrologically sensible – that is, it is meaningful within our understanding of the astrological symbolism.

Summary

In this article we have looked at the AstroSignature research design and demonstrated that it honors the astrological paradigm and has the ability to provide us with valuable and useful information. Certainly this has the potential to advance our knowledge of the multidimensional relationships that exist among the astrological symbolism, enabling us to apply our knowledge more meaningfully in practice. Next month we will explore in greater detail the integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques in data analysis and build an AstroSignature for psychic ability.

Notes & References

¹ Cochrane, D. (2004). Towards a Proof of Astrology: An AstroSignature for Mathematical Ability. On the Internet at http://www.astrosoftware.com/Proveast.htm.

² From the AstroDatabank user manual, following is a description of how control groups are created: Imagine each of the four elements of a set of birth data – Month-Day (where the Sun is), Year, Time, and Place – is a suit in a deck of cards. Imagine that you deal the cards in rows where it takes four cards to make up a birth data record. There are columns for Month-Day, Year, Time, and Place. Imagine, now, that you pick up the cards in the Month-Day column, shuffle them, and then deal them out again down the column. You will have the same number of May 3rds and November 10ths in that column as before, but they will be paired with different years, times and places than they were before. If you did this for each of the four elements (columns, in our example) in a birth record, you would have a control group that has the same distribution of month-days, years, times and places as the experimental group, but the month-days, years, times and places will be completely "shuffled".

This shuffling method of building control group is superior to building a control group based on random birth data. Many people using a control group built on random birth data elements have ended up with spurious results. Suppose you built a randomized control group of a thousand records from the years 1900-2000. We presume that there would be about ten records for each year. Imagine you had an experimental group of 1000 arthritis sufferers from the same time span, but 500 were from the 1930's and the rest from other decades. If you compared their Saturn placements by sign to a completely randomized control group of a thousand records, you would see many more Saturn's in Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces and Aries in the experimental group than in the control group. One might conclude that this is significant but it isn't because so much of the data is from the 1930's when Saturn was in Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces and Aries. That is why it is so important to mirror the experimental birth data in your control group. Any anomalies in the experimental group are mirrored in the control group so the chances of getting false signals are reduced.

³ A univariate analysis examines astrological factors individually.

⁴ Perry, G. (1997). Stealing Fire from the Gods, Myth and Method in Astrological Research. San Rafael, CA: The Academy of AstroPsychology,  p.9.

Research By Design
Part 1: Exploring Structure and Standards