Research Philosophy

Wall Watchers’ premise and foundational orientation begins with the assumption that the Bible illuminates two things: the nature and character of God and the nature and character of what man is and what it should be. If one carefully considers these things it will result in excellence in action and behavior. God acts in perfect knowledge, truthfulness, perfect judgment, wisdom, discernment and understanding. Therefore, our goal should be to follow in God's example.

Unfortunately, our postmodern culture has downplayed the importance of or in many cases denies the above mentioned things. Contradictory statements like "All truth is relative" and "there are no absolutes," especially in regards to religion, are deemed the accepted norm in many circles. Many question whether it's even possible to know truth at all! Such relativity is acceptable when it comes to spiritual matters, but when it comes to matters of the balance of your bank account absolute truth is deemed very important.

Just as truth is called into question, we are told that discerning wisdom should not be used to discriminate between religious claims. Any sort of discerning wisdom cannot be relevant since all beliefs are considered true by the relativist. By the same token "Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1) has become one of the most misinterpreted Bible verse. Some would say, "you can't judge anything to be wrong." If this is the case we don’t need to be concerned where we spend our money, how we treat people, what we teach, what we learn of (if we learn anything at all), how we drive, how a doctor operates on us, what pills a pharmacist filled, or where we give our money and what cause we support. This whole judgment of some that others cannot judge anything wrong is misguided, out of context and not a wise or logical premise, even when it comes to spiritual matters.

Wall Watchers rejects the postmodern approach, but believes:

God is a rational being.
Likewise God created us as rational.
Truth is absolute in nature
Truth is that which corresponds to reality
Truth about reality is knowable
The opposite of true is false.
Two opposing statements cannot both be true in the same sense and the same time.
God desires that His people conduct themselves in a wise, understanding and discerning manner in the pursuit of truth
Our day to day lives should not be separated from spiritual matters. Rather, both should happen together harmoniously.

Because we live in an imperfect world, things are not always what they appear. Deceit and evil are often clothed in the shapes and appearances of truth and goodness. Things are sometimes better and sometimes worse than they appear to be. A gray beard does not make a philosopher; all is not gold that glitters; and a rough diamond may be worth an immense sum. Even good people can make bad decisions and make mistakes. We ought therefore to restrain snap judgments and opinions before we have opportunity to search into them more thoroughly.

It is very important that donors learn to judge things aright rather than donate first then later regret giving to "wrong" charitable causes. Instead, healthy inquiry will help the donor find out whether he or she agrees or disagrees with how the receiving charities handle themselves financially and spiritually. Inquiry will give the donor clarity in deciding whether a given ministry actually promotes and cultivates that which is important to the donor. Otherwise continual confusion will give way to wasted donor time, talent, and dollars in unintended activity and unintended support.

Wise decisions are made after looking at the options from all angles. In order to discern the better between two or more things, one must compare the similar counterparts of the two. Each aspect must be weighed on the balance of judgment. Strengths and weaknesses of each should be understood. The whole purpose is to make all the circumstances lucid in order to make an informed decision.

If we were to decide on which car to buy, we might compare the reports between the car dealer, the mechanic, your friend who might be with you, and of course our own observations of the car. It is important to take note of evident disagreements between the information received. Most of the time some statements must be discarded and some affirmed, as many will contradict each other. We might ask, "Is it evident that the car is reliable as the dealer says it is?" or "does the evidence weigh in favor of the mechanic who says otherwise?" Two opposing statements cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. We must then weigh all this with the other car we might be considering. Not only are there multiple sources of information, but we have multiple cars to compare. Car buyers will look at varying degrees of reliability, cost, gas mileage, functional use, safety record, make, model, location made, and perhaps a few other things as it is important and relevant to that potential car buyer.

Likewise, we can distinguish what a ministry believes and compare what it does to what it says it does. We also ask, "how is this ministry organized and how is the money spent?" We can then compare it with another ministry. If you have two equally good ministries, all things being equal, decide on those preferences that God has given you. This assumes that the given the methodology is proper and there is no evidence of deceit.

There is no question that donors are forced to choose to donate to some ministries and not to others, simply because donors do not have of unlimited resources. Because of this premise, Wall Watchers believes that donors should make an assessment of their options and make discerning decisions. Not everyone has enough time to research everything. Thus Wall Watchers serves as a donor advocate facilitating the information needs of donors.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Wall Watchers will use varying degrees of inductive and deductive reasoning as it conducts its research. Through many observations (induction) Wall Watchers will draw reasonable conclusions (deductions) about ministries in order to help donors make discerning decisions.

There are different schools of thought in logic - that between deductive and inductive reasoning, as well as differences in the science method from the empirical method versus relying on theory.

A deductive argument offers two or more assertions that lead automatically to a conclusion. Deductive arguments can usually be phrased as brief, mathematical statements in which the premises lead inexorably to the conclusion. As long as the assertions in the argument are true, there can be no doubt that the final statement is correct--it is a matter of mathematical certainty.

Unlike deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning is not designed to produce mathematical certainty. Induction occurs when we gather bits of specific information together and use our own knowledge and experience in order to make an observation about what must be true. Inductive reasoning uses a series of observations, in order to reach a conclusion. The reasoning process is directly opposite to that of deductive. The most basic kind of inductive reasoning is called induction by enumeration, or, more commonly, generalization. You generalize whenever you make a general statement based on observations with specific members of that group. You also generalize when you make an observation about a specific thing based on other specific things that belong to the same group. When you use specific observations as the basis of a general conclusion, you are said to be making an inductive leap.

Because of different schools of thought in logic, not all research methodology is the same. There are essentially two very different types of research being done by groups and individuals:

Inductive method, one that is generalized to a target situation from initial behavioral and demographic characteristics shared by other situations that have been studied in the past. It is the product of incomplete, statistical analysis and generalization (very often without comparison to norms), hence the descriptor Inductive.
Deductive method, (the less common method) is the process of interpreting physical evidence, and a thorough study of the situation at issue, to accurately reconstruct the specific situation, and from those specific, individual patterns, deduce offender characteristics, demographics, emotions, and motivations. It is a heavy emphasis on an informed forensic reconstruction, and the exclusion of information from other similar offenders, or other similar offenses and situations.

Deductive research is one that is deduced from the careful forensic examination and behavioral reconstruction of a single situation. After the situation has been reconstructed, the characteristics are analyzed. From the combined characteristics, research of the situation can be deductively inferred. It is a forensically and behaviorally contained process. The process of deductive research is most appropriately termed Behavior Evidence Analysis, and depends on the analyst's abilities to recognize patterns of behavior within a single situation to deduce meaning.

The advantages of the Inductive research model are:

A very easy tool to use, for which no specialized knowledge, education, or training is required.
Research can be assembled in a relatively short period of time without any great effort or ability on the part of the researcher. The result can be a list of unqualified characteristics. These generalizations can accurately predict some of the non-distinguishing elements of a research situation, but not with a great deal of consistency or reliability.

The major disadvantages of the Inductive research model are:

The information itself is generalized from limited population samples, and not specifically related to any one case; therefore it is not by its nature intended for reconstructing a specific research targets situation. It is a generalized set of representations, averaged from a small group who may or may not have been appropriately sampled, depending on the knowledge and ability of the person collecting and assembling the data.
Inductive research are generalized and averaged from the limited data collected only from known related data points. Inductive research does not fully or accurately take into account the current situation, therefore it is by its very nature missing datasets from the most intelligent or skillful researcher.
A third major disadvantage is that, as with any such generalization, Inductive research is going to contain specific inaccuracies that can and have been used to implicate an opposite conclusion, such as innocent individuals being wrongly accused. This occurs when Inductive research is used as some sort of infallible predictive measure by an unprofessional, trigger-happy researcher.

The advantages of the Deductive research model are:

This model requires specialized education and training in a particular field. Because of this requisite specialized knowledge, Deductive research tend to be more specific than Inductive research, moving from a universal set of characteristics to a more unique set of characteristics.
Deductive research is also useful for thoroughly establishing Modus Operandi behavior, as well as offender signature behavior, which assists in the linkage of seemingly unrelated situations (or crimes).
Deductive research method more thoroughly explores victimology, and the nature of the interaction between the victim(s), the crime scene(s), and the offender. It can very pointedly demonstrate an individual offender's motivations in even the most bizarre or seemingly senseless offenses. No one acts without motivation. Deductive research techniques explore offender actions through the physical evidence, through the victimology, and through the crime scene as the primary behavioral and motivational documentation, and illuminate that particular offender's motivation. The whole research target is a logic statement, based solidly on the arguments made through an analysis of behavior patterns.
Also, due to this same thoroughness, learned or experiential generalizations can be kept from obscuring or misleading research. Researchers with a lot of experience researching a particular type of situation, tend to formulate theories about a case early on. Instead of researching the case, they may instead spend their efforts attempting to prove a theory. Deductive research precludes theory generation, and subsequent bruised egos, until a full research analysis has been done.
The final major advantage of the Deductive research method is that it examines behaviors of individual offenders as they occur over time. Change and growth are allowed for, analyzed, and recompiled back into the research target. As something like offender MO behavior or motivations change or evolve over the course of multiple offenses in an offender's career, it is noticed and it used to better understand the offender.

The disadvantages of Deductive research method are:

It is not a quick fix or a cure all; it requires a great deal of effort and multi-disciplinary skill on the part of each member of the research team.
Because it is a more intensive process, it can be extremely emotionally exhausting. Researchers that learn to use these techniques should take care to be emotionally grounded individuals and not be afraid to discuss any emotional difficulties with those close to them.
Deductive research cannot point out a specific known individual and say with confidence that they are likely responsible for a certain crime or series of crimes unless that offender's unique signature is known and established.

The multi-disciplinary Deductive research method is the more time consuming, but in the research/investigative end will prove to be more effective because of its usefulness as a research/investigative guide, its competency at linking wrongdoing (or efficiency and best practices), and because of its very high probative value in terms of thoroughly establishing signature and motivation. In short, the Deductive research encourages deliberation, competency, thoroughness, and requires a high degree of internal cohesiveness and communication. The Inductive research method encourages egocentricity, research/investigative short-cuts, and has been used in the past to replace a competent forensic research/investigation into fact.