Dr. Clayton Mullen

This summary review examines the inspection process in relation to fundamental research paradigms and factors influencing those paradigms. The objective is to offer a brief insight into the inspection process through the prisms of science, philosophy, and psychology but not to advocate for a specific approach. The reader is encouraged to consider factors related to the interchanges of an observer, the phenomena that are observed, and the combination of the observer and the observed. Arming the observer with broader knowledge can bolster approaches to inspection. At a minimum, the discussion will encourage introspection. The term ‘observer’ is used contextually in this paper both as the act of receiving information from the external world and as a practitioner assessing phenomena. An awareness of the different avenues of inquiry and factors influencing inquiry may assist with conceptual and practical approaches to observation and inspection. Gathering information through observation has obvious similarities with data collection in formal research. The act of observation shapes our interpretations of reality and how information is processed into knowledge. Practical field-level inspections lack formal research structure; however, envisioning inspections from a theoretical perspective allows appreciation for both quantitative and qualitative approaches. A combination of qualitative and quantitative paradigms is termed mixed-methods or mixed methodology. This conceptual quantitative-qualitative amalgam includes reconciling their philosophical roots with positivism, interpretivism, and constructivism. Comparisons between research methods and field-level inspection are explored through information research and summary review. The constructs of the observer effect, solipsism, social capital, and locus of control inform the discussion.

Inspection, research, ontology, epistemology, methodology, observer effect, solipsism, social capital, locus of control.

1) Sabrina, A. B., Feryel, S., & Khadidja, B. (2020). High-level image representation-based on Gestalt theory for image classification. 020 1st International Conference on Communications, Control Systems and Signal Processing (CCSSP), Communications, Control Systems and Signal Processing (CCSSP), 2020 1st International Conference On, 186–192.

2) Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press.

3) Breznau, N. (2016). Secondary observer effects: idiosyncratic errors in small-N secondary data analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(3), 301–318.

4) Gosselin, F., & Larrieu, L. (2020). Developing and using statistical tools to estimate observer effect for ordered class data: The case of the IBP (Index of Biodiversity Potential). Ecological Indicators, 110.

5) Lewis, C. S. (2012). The screwtape letters. William Collins.

6) Walton, D. (1975). The Omnipotence Paradox. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 4(4), 705-715. Retrieved October 5, 2020.

7) Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

8) Babbie, E. R. (2014). The basics of social research. Sixth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

9) Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches

10) Kankam, P. K. (2019). The use of paradigms in information research. Library and Information Science Research, 41(2), 85– 92.

11) Wilding, A. (2019). Paradigm Wars: Selecting a Philosophical Side When Considering a Research Design.

12) Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105–117.

13) Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixedmethods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43.

14) Sahin, M. D., & Öztürk, G. (2019). Mixed Method Research: Theoretical Foundations, Designs, and Its Use in Educational Research. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 6(2), 301–310.

15) Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

16) Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning Theories: Constructivism. Radiologic Technology, 90(2), 180 182.

17) Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.

18) Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher 12: 6–13.

19) Zwirn, H. (2020). The measurement problem in Quantum Mechanics: Convivial Solipsism. EPJ Web of Conferences, 244, 01010.

20) Casebeer, A. L. & Verhoef, M. J. (1997). Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods: Considering the possibilities for enhancing the study of chronic diseases. Chronic Diseases in Canada 18: 130–135.

21) Haase, J. E. &Myers, S. T. (1988). Reconciling paradigm assumptions of qualitative and quantitative research. Western Journal of Nursing Research 10: 128–137.

22) King, G., Keohane, R. O. & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

23) Reichardt, C. S. & Rallis, S. F. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership. New Directions for Program Evaluation 61: 85–91.

24) Howick, J., & Schmaus, D. (2018). Transitioning from the Reflection-Based Safety Literacy Classroom to the Worksite: The Student Experience. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 64(3), 249–263.

25) Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher 17: 10–16.

26) Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigour in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science 8: 27–37.

27) Alvero, A. M., & Austin, J. (2004). The effects of conducting behavioral observations on the behavior of the observer. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 37(4), 457–468.

28) Alvero, A. M., Rost, K., & Austin, J. (2008). The safety observer effect: The effects of conducting safety observations. Journal of Safety Research, 39(4), 365–373.

29) Hsieh, T.-S., Kim, J.-B., Wang, R. R., & Wang, Z. (2020). Seeing is believing? Executives’ facial trustworthiness, auditor tenure, and audit fees. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 69(1).

30) Myers, J. S., Fudemberg, S. J., Fintelmann, R. E., Hark, L. A., Khanna, N., Leiby, B. E., & Waisbourd, M. (2020). Impossibility to eliminate observer effect in the assessment of adherence in clinical trials. Patient Preference and Adherence, 2145.

31) Paradis, E., & Sutkin, G. (2017). Beyond a good story: from Hawthorne Effect to reactivity in health professions education research. Medical Education, 51(1), 31–39.

32) Douven, I. (2018). A Bayesian perspective on Likert scales and central tendency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 1203.

33) Ranciati, S., Galimberti, G., & Soffritti, G. (2019). Bayesian variable selection in linear regression models with non-normal errors. Statistical Methods & Applications, 28(2), 323–358.

34) Huo, M., Asimakopoulos, A., & Doyle, J. C. (2019). Measurement back action and a classical uncertainty principle: Heisenberg meets Kalman. 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), Control Conference (ACC), 2019 American, 2534– 2539.

35) Henriksen, M. G. (2013). On incomprehensibility in schizophrenia. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 12(1), 105– 129.

36) Humpston, C. S. (2018). The paradoxical self: Awareness, solipsism, and first-rank symptoms in schizophrenia. Philosophical Psychology, 31(2), 210–231.

37) Zwirn, H. (2016). The Measurement Problem: Decoherence and Convivial Solipsism. Foundations of Physics, 46(6), 635– 667.

38) Elliot, J. T. (1997). Locus of control: Problem children--Behavior. British Journal of Counseling and Guidance, 25(1), 27-47.

39) Ghonsooly, B., & Shirvan, M. E. (2011). On the relation of locus of control and L2 reading and writing achievement. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 234-244.

40) Liang, S., Chang, Y., Dong, X., & Wang, J. (2019). Perceived uniqueness: Locus of control, social exclusion, and choice. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 47(11), 1–7.

41) Tillman, C. J., Smith, F. A., & Tillman, W. R. (2010). Work locus of control and the multi-dimensionality of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 14(2), 107-125.

42) Andrasani, P. J., & Nestel, G. (1976). Internal–external control as contributor to and outcome of work experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 156-165.

43) Igbeneghu, B. I., & Popoola, S. O. (2011). Influence of locus of control and job satisfaction on organizational commitment: A study of medical records personnel in university teaching hospitals in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-22.

44) Reer, F., & Krämer, N. C. (2017). The Connection between Introversion/Extraversion and Social Capital Outcomes of Playing World of Warcraft. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 20(2), 97–103.

45) Morgan, G. (2007). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

46) Parker, G. (2008). Team players and teamwork: New strategies for developing successful collaboration, completely updated and revised (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

47) Scott, W.R., Davis, G.F. (2007). Organizations and organizing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

48) Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Prentice Hall

49) Carrera, N., Sohail, T., & Carmona, S. (2017). Audit committees’ social capital and financial reporting quality. Accounting and Business Research, 47(6), 633–672. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

50) Kostewicz, D. E., King, S. A., Datchuk, S. M., Brennan, K. M., & Casey, S. D. (2016). Data collection and measurement assessment in behavioral research: 1958–2013. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(1), 19–33.

51) Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

52) Somerville, M. M., Chaudhary, N., Mirijamdotter, A., & Sayyad-Abdi, E. (2019). Informed Systems: “Designing Together” for “Learning Together.” Journal of Library Administration, 59(1), 1–17.

VOLUME 03 ISSUE 12 DECEMBER 2020