Research has been defined as the systematic investigation (Burns 1997) or establish query through the study of materials and gathered data to establish facts and reach new conclusions through taking the initiative to ‘describe, understand, control or predict a psychological or an educational phenomenon or to empower individuals in these sorts of contexts’ (Mertens 2005). O'Leary (2004) argued that something simple to describe forty or thirty years ago has become more complex in recent years due to the noticeable increase in the range of the research, especially in the applied social sciences (p.8). Accordingly, it has been proposed that the nature of the research is influenced by the theoretical framework of the investigator, with a theory that shows relationships among or
between constructs to explain a phenomenon through bypassing events and trying to link it to similar events (Mertens 2005).
Research is a systematic plan to study a specific matter that enables investigators to move from here to there, where it can be defined as a set of questions that must be answered, and there is a set of results to answer these questions (Yin 2003). Researchers are required to move on certain phases including data collection and data analysis to reach desired results. Based on (Oliver 2010) views that research design often employs theoretically consistent methods and procedures to fulfil the research objectives to carefully collect and evaluate evidence to test the hypothesis and draw a conclusion.
Research is a complex process and is associated with a variety of expectations. Given this complexity, it may not be surprising that researchers base their goals on different beliefs about how the research is conducted and what the results should achieve (Krauss & Putra 2005). It has been proposed by Filstead (1979) that multiple needs addressed in a paradigm are: (1) it frames guidelines to experts, presenting key issues in a particular situation in any discipline; (2) it creates theories and frameworks to enable researchers to find solutions and reach conclusions; (3) it presents tools to gather data (i.e. methodology, tools and data gathering); (4) it presents the processes and methods that must be considered if any issues encountered. Therefore, the methodology should match the particular paradigm and different paradigms might require the use of different methodologies (Krauss & Putra 2005). According to Chua (1986), there are three dominant paradigms in finance research - the positivist, interpretivist and critical research, which could be selected by researchers to guide particular research.
4.2.1 POSITIVISM
In the positivist paradigm, the objective of the research is determined independently from researchers, including the facts that are determined by considering the phenomena in a fundamental way to examine its components and discover knowledge and thus verify them through direct measurements of phenomena (Krauss & Putra 2005; Healy & Perry 2009). In the positivist paradigm, data is always collected quantitatively and analyzed using statistical methods (Krauss
& Putra 2005; Peta et al. 1998); Landry & Banville 1992). In addition, researchers always develop hypotheses, then try to present and prove assumed relationships by directing the null hypotheses (Krauss & Putra 2005). Through the positivist paradigm, another researcher should be able to conduct the same study in the same way and achieve results that are comparable between the two studies (Peta et al. 1998). Therefore, based on the above discussion, this study uses deductive reasoning – starting with a theoretical framework and developing towards empirical evidence using quantitative method in order to define set of mechanisms used to predict the general practices and behavior of human activity (Krauss & Putra 2005; Landry & Banville 1992).
4.2.2 INTERPRETIVISM
The interpretivist paradigm initiated with the philosophy of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology and Wilhelm Dilthey's and other German philosophers' investigation of the interpretive process (Mertens 2005, p.12, citing Eichelberger 1989). The interpretivist research paradigm believes that the reality of the phenomenon is complex, with multi-layered concepts which can have multiple interpretations. In studying a phenomenon, interpretivist research is used to understand people's experience within their social environment, while positivist research considers that all people share similar human behaviours (Walsham 1995). The interpretative researcher believes that
people perceive it to be (Trauth & Jessup 2000; Walsham 1995; Lincoln & Guba 2000). Hence, these researchers are interested in exploring the lived experience of humanity (Lincoln & Guba 2000).
The interpretivist researcher identifies what is essential to each individual and then becomes aware of each object that it’s meaningful to individuals in general. This involvement allows researchers to explore socially constructed subjects based on the group of individuals' views (Trauth & Jessup, 2000). Hence, interpretivist involves refreshers to integrate human interest into the study, accordingly, interpretative researchers emphasize qualitative methods over quantitative analysis (Krauss & Putra 2005; Lincoln & Guba 2000). In general, this study tries to explain mechanisms and laws that can be predicted by using quantitative analysis. Hence, this is consistent with the application of the positivist paradigm, whereas, interpretivist paradigm focuses on exploring the context to obtain logical meaning utilizing qualitative approaches (Krauss & Putra 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Trauth & Jessup 2000). Therefore, it is not compatible with the objectives of this study.
4.2.3 CRITICAL THEORY
Critical research seeks to guide human rationality and brings social change through empowering people to have a better world for themselves (Krauss & Putra 2005; Healy & Perry 2000). Critical research achieves this approach by focusing on power, inequality, and social change. The critical paradigm has been linked to historical realism, in which historical realism views the reality of people's actions created and shaped by social, political, cultural matters (Guba & Lincon 1994, p.
110). Hence, realities are socially embedded under the internal influence. Accordingly, critical research believes that once people have surface delusions for what they are, they will consider the least internal force to change their lives. When superficial delusions affect people, they will
use the least internal force to change their lives (Krauss & Putra 2005; Healy and Perry 2000).
The critical researchers present the research findings that lead to transformation through enabling realties to be examined considering historical, cultural and political stances. (Krauss & Putra 2005; Healy and Perry 2000). Critical researchers use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in order to promote dialogical relations of the basic mechanisms to drive actions and events (Krauss & Putra 2005; Healy and Perry 2000).
The researcher chose not to use critical epistemology in this research, since the research purpose is to gather data quantitatively. Therefore, it would not be possible to collect data in an epistemological setting. Furthermore, the researcher’s motivation for conducting the study is to explore aspects of positive and negative factors of using Fintech that influences bank financial performance through customer experience, customer satisfaction and loyalty. Hence, this study chooses the positivist paradigm.
4.2.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR USING THE POSITIVIST PARADIGM IN THIS RESEARCH
The key aim of this research is to explore the impact that consumer perceptions of positive and negative factors of using Fintech has on customer experience (through the confirmation of expectation), customer satisfaction, repurchase intention and customer loyalty as well as the overall association to bank financial performance. In accordance with the various theories and frameworks to explain customer behaviour, the researcher proposed a hypothesis-based framework. Based on the objective of the study to validate the research hypotheses, the researcher opted for using a positivist (quantitative) approach as this was more suited to the topic.
Hussey and Hussey (1997) proposed that the general procedure and practice in positivist research is to explore relevant theories, create a suitable theory model and formulate hypotheses. Thus, this research is established in accordance with the positivist approach instead of interpretivist principles.
Most prior studies have used quantitative methods to draw insights based on people's intentions and have not been linked with firm financial performance; hence, making it essential to comprehensively test the relationship. Most samples were small, conducted in developed countries and inhibit generalizability (Mbama & Ezepue 2018; Ryu 2018; Belanche & Flavián 2019). Therefore, this study used the survey method to obtain a larger sample from a developing country so that results can be generalizable to a larger segment of the financial institutes in the banking sector. Also, financial technology consumer behavior is under-researched to be merely handled by a quantitative research method. Finally, the positivist approach suits the proposed study to have a clear theoretical, economic and financial data collection (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Accordingly, this study adopts the positivist paradigm as it is the most appropriate to address the research objectives and hypotheses. Prior studies in consumer perception towards technology in the banking sector are considered positivist paradigm like Al-Malkawi, Mansumitrchai & Al-Habib 2016; Mbama & Ezepue (2018); Ryu 2018; Belanche and Flavián (2019). Hence, this supports the use of this paradigm in this study.