Research: Step by Step
Investigating Psychic Ability in the Birth Chart

by Terri McCartney

In addition to presenting a research study this month, we will also explore the research process and define some key concepts. Based on the emails I receive, many of you are eager to investigate various facets of astrology. At the same time, because you aren’t familiar with the research process you don’t know where to begin. So this month, the research process will be outlined. Next month we will explore research design.

Let’s begin by defining what we mean by research. Music scholars, Phelps, Ferrara and Goolsby, define research as a carefully organized procedure that can result in the discovery of new knowledge, the substantiation of previously held concepts, the rejection of false tenets that have been widely acclaimed, and the formal presentation of data collected¹. Importantly, research is all about discovery. Even when what we learn is not what we expected to learn and our findings disprove “widely acclaimed tenets,” we have discovered something meaningful and something that needs to be shared with our professional counterparts. And certainly there are hundreds of untested astrological assertions just waiting to be investigated for their validity. So let’s look at how this journey of discovery unfolds, step by step.

Step One: Pick a Topic to Investigate

The first step in the research process is to pick a topic. Pick something that fascinates and intrigues you. Pick something you’re passionate to learn more about. While watching a recent episode of The Dead Zone, I felt inspired to investigate psychic ability. That’s the topic I will use to demonstrate the research process outlined in this article.

Step Two: Literature Review

Once you have decided on your topic, the next step is to conduct a literature review. That is, you will review what is already in print on the topic. The goal here is to increase your awareness of what others have already done and to critique their research process, (be it formal or informal), for both strengths and weaknesses. Gather all the information you can find. Search through astrological books, journals and magazines. Conduct a web search on the topic.

The key is to systematically and review thoroughly what others have proposed. Review it critically. Evaluate the inferences the author makes and the conclusions drawn. Take notes. Write down questions that arise as you review others work. All these things will assist you in organizing your own research project.

For example, following is a critique of two sources proposing an astrological signature for psychic ability. In 2001, Mitchell Gibson, M.D. published Signs of Psychic and Spiritual Ability². In the Spring 2004 issue of Geocosmic Journal, Gaston Mascarenas published The Astrological Signature of Psychics³.

Mitchell Gibson offers a model that he proposes is useful for rating general psychic potential in the birth chart. He collected the charts of 31 famous psychics and compared their chart features to a control group composed of 30 age-matched subjects. I commend Gibson for his use of a control group. However, an important function of the control group in astrological research is to remove biases that result from astronomical realities (like the fact that the earth’s tilt on its axis results in an unequal distribution of rising signs at all latitudes). Therefore, when generating control groups in astrological research, it is important to replicate the experimental group data for year of birth, hemisphere, longitude and latitude (something the ADB control group generator does for its users). Gibson’s study controlled for only one of these factors: the year of birth. Therefore, Gibson’s control group does not mirror his experimental group closely enough increasing the likelihood of identifying something as significant when it isn’t. Additionally, I questioned the accuracy of some of the data he published for the psychics used in his study because he did not provide a rating for it accuracy and it did not match the data in the Rodden database that did.

Gaston Mascarenas conducted a case study using the birth charts of eight psychics. All eight psychics had the chart features that composed his signature. He noted his data source and used data with a Rodden rating of "A" or above in all but one case. A weakness of his study was that a control group was not used to determine whether the factors included in his signature occurred more often than by random error or chance. This is a common weakness in astrological studies—I advocate integrating qualitative and quantitative methods because until we start testing our signatures to determine whether what we are finding occurs significantly more frequently than by chance or random error, we really don’t know if we’ve found anything meaningful.

Mascarenas’ findings reject the commonly held assumption that the 12th house is emphasized in the charts of psychics. The eight psychics he studied all had 8th house stelliums. Additionally, the results of his study suggest that interceptions are a common feature in psychic’s charts.

Step Three: Formulate Research Objectives and Methodology

A natural outgrowth of the literature review is to have a clear idea of your own research goals. For example, after reviewing Gibson’s and Mascarenas signatures for psychic ability it was clear to me that my own research objective was to retest their Astrosignatures. Since these two signatures had already been advanced, the important thing was to determine their validity using a larger experimental group of psychics and compare this group to a control group.

Qualitative or Quantitative? Your topic will assist you in deciding on the best method. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are valid for conducting astrological research. There’s a lot of debate around this now. The debate essentially arises from the fact that most people believe that quantitative methods necessitate following the mechanistic scientific paradigm. However, essentially, quantitative research involves counting, controls and statistics and is used to express probabilities and generalize findings.

In contrast, qualitative methods are anecdotal and focus on characteristics, distinctions and correlations. It is rich with interpretation and description. Both Gibson and Mascarenas used a qualitative method known as the case study. That is, they looked at a group of charts sharing a similar trait (psychic ability) and examined those charts for similarities in astrological symbolism. Gibson also used a quantitative approach and statistically analyzed his group of psychics and compared their chart symbolism to that of a control group. In astrological research, the two methods naturally compliment one another.

Astrology is both a qualitative and quantitative language that embraces both the social and natural sciences. We use qualitative methods (such as case study, interviews and questionnaires) to identify chart features shared by those in the group we are studying. Or, alternately, we use qualitative methods to identify chart features (such as an 8th house stellium), and then seek to identify what trait people with an 8th house stellium have in common.

However, we need our quantitative researchers. We have hundreds of untested astrological assertions that need to be investigated for their validity. Using a control group provides us with a means to compare and measure differences and thereby identify the planetary patterns that correlate with specific behaviors and/or events more often than by mere chance.

The objective driving this research project, to retest the signatures advanced by Gibson and Mascarenas’ requires a quantitative approach. It is the means to determine if what Gibson and Mascarenas found to be significant in the charts of psychics holds true when a larger group of psychics is used and compared to a control group.

Step Four: Data Collection

Once you’ve determined your research objectives and identified the most suitable methodology for conducting your study, the next step is to collect the data. Keep in mind that the accuracy of the data impacts the validity of the findings. We are indebted to Lois Rodden for her commitment to accurate data collection and for establishing a coding system that rates the accuracy of the data.

A second consideration is how much data is enough data for a sound study? The general rule of thumb is to allow five observations per category. For example, if you are counting houses, that would be 5x12 or 60 in your experimental group. The control group should be at least as large as the experimental group. Since we now have the computer technology to create sound control groups, it is recommended that we use control groups at least ten times larger than our experimental group. The larger the control group the less likely it is that the things we find to be significant will have occurred by random error or chance.

I perused the Rodden database that is provided with the AstroDatabank software and selected 80 psychics with a Rodden rating of A or above. I read through the biographies and chose psychics that have publicly demonstrated their psychic ability. Perusing the biographies ensures quality data but don’t look at the birth dates or charts. It is very important not to bias the data selection by having awareness of chart dynamics.

After selecting the 80 psychics based on information provided in their biographies, version 4 of the AstroDatabank software was used to create a research database consisting of these 80 psychics and a control group of 800.

Step Five: Data Analysis

As you analyze the data, you will observe the natural flow between the qualitative and quantitative methods when doing astrological research. The literature review often generates a rich source of qualitative data just waiting to be tested quantitatively with a sound control group.

The Astrosignature provides a means for accounting for the multiple astrological factors that combine to result in a particular trait (such as psychic ability) or phenomenon (such as a natural disaster). The strength of the Astrosignature is that scores each individual chart on these multiple factors. As you test the Astrosignature it is quite common to find that some of your experimental group is scoring lower than the average for the group. This calls for additional qualitative analysis to determine if there was something you missed identifying in the first go-round of data analysis. There is an easy flow existing between the qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis—both contributing to the richness of what is learned from the study.

Gibson’s Signature

Let’s take a look at Gibson’s signature for psychic ability. The full signature is composed of 60 weighted single factors. Thirty-eight of Gibson’s rules were weighted 10 points because he found them to occur 50% more frequently in the charts of his experimental group than he found them in the charts of his control group. The other 22 rules were weighted 25 points because he found them to occur 300% more frequently in the charts of the psychics than in the control group. It is these 22 rules that were retested in this project because they rendered meaningful differences in his study. Those 22 rules and the percentage of the psychics and control group that scored on each rule are listed in the table below. Note that none of the rules are demonstrating the 300% difference that Gibson achieved in his study and several of the factors were found more frequently in this control group. This demonstrates the importance of using large control groups that mirror the experimental group for year of birth, hemisphere, longitudes and latitudes. Otherwise, as Gibson’s study demonstrates, the results will indicate you’ve found something significant that might not hold up on retest.

Did you notice that the highest percentage of psychics scoring on any of Gibson’s rules is 11%? That’s only nine of our 80 psychics. Just imagine how many rules would be required if only 11% of your experimental group is scoring on each rule! As a rule of thumb, I suggest you shoot for 25% of the experimental group scoring on each rule.

You can achieve these sorts of percentages when you combine similar factors. For example, Gibson’s rules 3, 4, and 5 all include a Mercury sextile. Therefore, those three rules could be combined as one signature rule that would read: Mercury sextile Venus, Mars or Jupiter. When combined, 27.5% of the psychics would score on the rule as compared to only 12.38% on the control group. Individually, each of these rules is demonstrating over 100% positive frequency differences. I recommend that you seek 100% or greater frequency differences when selecting factors to include in your rules.

As you can see, only four of Gibson’s 22 signature rules proves to be a significant indicator of psychic ability when retested using larger experimental and control groups. The other 18 we can dismiss: they are not meaningful indicators of psychic ability. Now, let’s take a look at how well Mascarenas’ signature stands up on retesting.

Mascarenas Signature

Gaston Mascarenas signature includes eight rules. I tested six of them as shown in the table below. One of the key things Mascarenas found in his study was that each of the eight psychics he tested has an 8th house stellium and the stellium involved Sun, Venus or Mercury or the dispositor of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. His finding that Venus and the dispositor of Uranus were found in the 8th house did retest to occur in the charts of psychics 60-70% more frequently than they were found in the charts of the control group. Of course, if both Venus and the dispositor of Uranus were involved in an 8th house stellium, this would be even more statistically significant then if only one of these points was found.

I was curious if the 80 psychics tested in this project would also have emphasis on the 8th house. In fact they did and the planets/points demonstrating positive frequency differences of 100% or greater were Uranus or the dispositor of the Sun or South Node or the ruler of the Midheaven.

Step Six: Assign Meaning

Giving meaning to the findings is a subjective process because different researchers will infer different meanings—none of us is truly objective. Keeping this in mind, we are consciously on the look out for evidence of personal bias as we critique our study. Importantly, we answer the following questions:

• What was learned from the research endeavor?
• Why is what we learned valuable?

Remember; even when what we learn disconfirms commonly held astrological assumptions, it is just as valuable a learning as when we confirm what we believed to be true.

Step Seven: Identify Salient Topics/Issues for Further Research

As we work through step five and assign meaning, it’s common to become aware of what sort of questions remain unanswered. For example, it’s salient to further research 8th house stelliums because this study supports Mascarenas’ finding that the 8th house is emphasized in psychics’ charts. Additionally, it would be meaningful to advance the signature for psychic ability. That is something I will do next month as we explore research design. I recommend keeping a notebook where you keep track of the things you feel inspired to investigate.

Step Eight: Share

Publish your work. Talk about it. Let the astrological community know what you’ve investigated and what you learned from your investigation. I’m eager to hear from you about the research you’ve been doing and we at AstroDatabank are eager to publish your findings on our website.

Final Thoughts

I view research as the means to becoming ever more precise in communicating our symbolic language and deepening our intimacy with its archetypes. Ultimately, it is the means to improving our discipline. My hope is that this journey we’ve taken through the research process, step by step, has demonstrated to you how important it is that we do research and how satisfying (and fun!) it can be to advance knowledge.

Whatever paradigm guides your research and whatever methodology structures it, it is all about discovery. If you’ve learned something from your investigation, it was a worthy investment of time, energy and resources. We love and vitalize our cosmic discipline when we engage it this way!

Notes & References

¹ Provided by Phelps, Farrara and Goolsby, three music scholars. Their definition of research is referenced by Bernadette Brady in The Newtonian Merry-Go-Round, a paper submitted for the Bath Spa University College Master’s program and posted on www.geocosmic.org/.

² Gibson, Mitchell, M.D. Signs of Psychic and Spiritual Ability. Tempe, AZ, Modern Astrology Publishing, 2001, p. 43.

³ Mascarenas, Gaston. “The Astrological Signature of Psychics.” Geocosmic Journal, Spring 2004, p. 77.

Terri McCartney joined AstroDatabank as Research Director in 2004. She was appointed to the NCGR Board as Research Director in May, 2005. Terri is also employed by Astrolabe, Inc. where she provides technical support for their astrology software as well as technical writing. Terri has been a practicing astrologer for 20 years and is passionate about researching astrology to discover the techniques that work best. Terri graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University where both her undergraduate and graduate studies were in Communication.