Thank you so much for this thoughtful answer

Dear German:

You ask if there is any research on how changing the window of observation for a measurement changes its results.

As William's answer shows, it is often, if not always, the case that when one changes the window of observation for the measurement of a given phenomenon different results may appear. As I see it, you are asking if the results while we are measuring a given phenomenon depend on the theoretical/epistemological/philosophical framework we adopt. This is indeed the case. Suffice it to say that when we espouse, for example, a positivistic framework we are likely to say that we capture reality, be it physical or mental, as it is. In this vein, one's knowledge of reality is a mere copy or representation of this reality. This theoretical stance does not go without problems. It suffices to say, for example, that when we look at a straight rod immersed in a glass of water, we see the rod as being broken, and this is not the case because the immersed rod continues to be straight.  On the contrary, if one espouses, for instance, a constructivist framework, one sustains that our knowledge of reality is greatly constructed, and even socially constructed. In the example above, because we know of certain physical principles (e.g., refraction, deflection, and so on) we know that the immersed straight rod continues to be straight, albeit we see it as broken. This simple example shows that our knowledge of reality is far from being a mere copy of reality, and depends, for example, on our previous constructed knowledge.

As I am a developmental psychologist, allow me to  remember you that, for example, young children (under six years, say), are not to capable of number conservation (i.e., to know that the number of elements in a set remains constant regardless of their spatial arrangement in the respective set) . Children above seven are generally capable of number conservation  This difference show us that young children and, say, old ones look at the same reality (i.e,. number of elements in a set) from different theoretical perspectives, or. more precisely, according to their cognitive structures. As a result they reach different  conclusions.  Note also the following example having to do with liquids conservation (i.e, to know that a certain amount of water contained in a low glass (A) remains the same amount when it is poured, for example, to a tall glass (B)).  Note, however, that liquids conservation just mentioned is only true and valid at a macro-physical level. At a micro-physical level, when the referred to amount of water passes from A to B, it does not continue to be the same amount as before because, for example, some particles of water remain in A when the drinking water passed from A to B.

These simple examples clearly show that we arrive at different conclusions and results when we  adopt different  theoretical frameworks.

Best regards

Thank you, Orlando. If I understand correctly, the observation window is just part of the theoretical framework adopted to understand a phenomenon

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Bula, 

Fundamentally, any measurement involves comparison to a standard or unit of measurement; and no measurement can be absolutely precise. In consequence, more precise means of measurement may provide a different result than does some less precise means of measurement; and this is a difference that may certainly make a significant difference --if the more precise measurement yields something of theoretical interest --e.g., if it can be predicted on theoretical grounds, or if it falsifies prior assumptions. 

In addition, we know from special relativity that making a measurement presupposes a frame of reference, and employment of differing frames of reference may yield differences in the measured results. Such differences persist in spite of the principle that the laws of nature are constant and the same for all frames--i.e., in spite of the differing measured results taken from differing frames of reference. The variations of measurements, depending on differing frames of reference are discounted, though they are indeed genuine measurements, in view of the constancy of the laws --which suggests some theoretical compensation for the differing measurements. 

It would be a mistake, however, to simply insist that the distinctive measurements made from "our frame of reference" are right--because it is our frame of reference!

Special relativity actually teaches something of Einstein's typical realism about the laws of nature. 

H.G. Callaway 

Thank you. In organizations, the question of the frame of reference is rarely taken into account; performance indicators are used in a naively realistic fashion. Your answer has shown me that physics after Einstein is a good way of making this explicit, as a comparison