3.3. Research process onion
3.3.1. The research philosophy
3.3.3.1. The positivist paradigm
The French philosopher August Comte proposed the positivism paradigm. According to Comte, observation and reason are the best means of understanding human behaviour. Furthermore, actual knowledge is based on the experience of the senses and can be obtained by observation and experiment (Antwi & Hamza, 2015). Positivist researchers recognize reality as lawful and logical (Shah et al., 2018). In the positivism paradigm, it is possible to describe, control, and predict phenomena by applying systematic observation and precise scientific methods (Shah et al., 2018).
103 Positivism focuses on the objective measurement of social inquiry. The particular view of social science researchers as analysts or interpreters of their subject matter promotes the scientific mechanism on social issues to offer the finest possible and most precise knowledge (Cohen et al., 2011). In positivism, the assumption is that reality involves facts. The researchers can observe and measure validity objectively, with no researcher influence on the data collection (Cohen et al., 2011).
Table 3.1: The positivism research philosophy Ontology
(nature of reality or being)
Epistemology
(what constitutes acceptable knowledge)
Axiology (role of values)
Typical methods
Accurate, external, independent.
One true reality (universalism).
Granular (things) ordered.
Scientific method.
Observable and measurable facts.
Law-like generalizations.
Numbers .
Causal explanation and prediction as a contribution.
Value-free research.
The researcher is detached, neutral, and independent of what is researched.
The researcher maintains an objective
stance.
Typically deductive, highly structured, large samples, measurement, naturally quantitative methods of analysis, but a range of data can be analysed.
Source: Saunders et al. (2009)
Table 3.1 clarifies positivism in ontology, epistemology, axiology, and research methods.
The positivism paradigm’s ontological assumptions assume that reality is objective and measurable using properties independent of the researcher and instruments (Antwi & Hamza, 2015). Reality is “hard, real, and external” (Cohen et al., 2000:218). Additionally, the reality is external and independent of social construction. In the positivist paradigm, knowledge is objective and quantifiable. Positivistic thinkers believe research should follow a scientific investigation (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017b). Positivism claims that reality must be examined by utilizing a
“rigourous scientific inquiry process” (Guba, 1990:20).
The positivism paradigm reflects that “truth is possible to discover” (Mukherji & Albon, 2015:24).
Kamal (2018) noted that “Human behaviour is predictable, caused and subject to both internal
104 pressures and external forces (for positivistic sociologists)” (Hitchcock et al., 1995:22). The positivism paradigm believes that knowledge directly reflects the empirical world (Kamal, 2018).
In positivism, in studying the phenomena, the experimental design method discovers the causal inferences between an independent variable and one or more dependent variables (Cohen et al., 2000).
The paradigm uses a quantitative methodological approach to generalizing the world and recording accurate measurement (Kamal, 2018). The realist/objectivist ontology and empiricist epistemology in the positivist paradigm involves a research methodology that is objective or detached from investigators (Cohen et al., 2000). The emphasis is on measuring variables and testing hypotheses linked to general causal descriptions (Tuli, 2010). The positivism paradigm uses surveys and experiments (Cohen et al., 2000). The positivist paradigm is a basis for a quantitative research approach (Arghode, 2012; Pham, 2018). The purpose is to predict, control, and generalize the findings through surveys, questionnaires, or experimental methods (Kamal, 2018). Positivist researchers assume a causal factor for phenomena and search for the effects of those factors logically (Arghode, 2012). This paradigm helps positivist researchers understand the objects through practical tests and techniques such as sampling, measurement, questionnaires, and focus group discussion (Pham, 2018). Thus, positivist research results may have high validity and reliability (Cohen, 2007) and represent and replicate the larger population (Pham, 2018).
There is a concern about adopting the positivism paradigm in social science research. It is impossible to measure phenomena related to human intentions, thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes (Hammersley, 2012). These concepts may not be observed or measured logically or without evidence (Hammersley, 2012; Pham, 2018). Although the results of social science studies created by statistical measurement are more likely to be reliable and relatively objective, they may be indifferent to individual differences (Shah et al., 2018). Thus, the generalizability of findings, as outcomes drawn in the positivism paradigm, may be made to many populations. It challenges researchers to directly apply their understanding of the phenomena in particular local contexts (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
Furthermore, positivism assumes that human behavior is passive. It is determined, controlled, and oversees intention, individualism, and freedom (Cohen et al., 2011; Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020).
Thus, the findings drawn from the positivist approach are more insignificant and less relevant to
105 participants’ consequences (Cohen et al., 2011; Shah et al., 2018). Positivism might lead to the misuse of statistical tests, leading to misinterpretation in research, due to incorrect statistical tests (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Additionally, positivism relies on statistics and generalizations, leading to universal laws and findings (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Therefore, it is challenging for researchers to understand the in-depth issues considered part of their research (Alharahsheh &
Pius, 2020). The primary purpose of this study is to develop a social performance measurement framework. The framework will help evaluate both internal efficiencies and respond to the requirements expected from external stakeholders. For this study, a positivist paradigm is inappropriate. It would not have discovered the complexity and breadth of the data required.