CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.2 The Research Paradigm
This study adopted mixed research methods, with a greater emphasis on the quantitative approach. Therefore, the choice of the research paradigm adopted this position. Overall, a research paradigm is a framework used for organising how the study should be conducted (Biedenbach & Müller, 2011; Taylor & Medina, 2013; Antwi, Inusah, Mohammed, &
Hamza, 2015; Baker, 2015). The paradigm highlights the challenges of the discipline under study, provides supporting theories and forms criteria for research tools (Dix, 2007;
Wahyuni, 2012; Makombe, 2017). There are two imperative aspects of research paradigm:
the ontology and epistemology.
3.2.1 Ontology
The ontology of the study explains how facts are interpreted (Fonseca, 2007; Scotland, 2012; Littlejohn & Foss, 2009). The two extreme ontological views are objectivism and subjectivism (Ramaprasad & Papagari, 2009). Objectivism suggests that facts about research are verifiable, while subjectivism suggests an absolute truth to the knowledge under study (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009; Wilson, 2010). The current study adopted the
objectivism perspective in the view of knowledge extracted. This is because the study used scientific methods of research with the intention of obtaining facts about the research which are verifiable (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009; Vasilachis de Gialdino, 2011). Additionally, the study advocates for the independence of the researcher in the research process. This position is strongly maintained by objectivists (Scotland, 2012; Dieronitou, 2014). The execution of the study was done in a way that the researcher and the sample were independent of each other. In opposition to this study method, subjectivism suggests that the knowledge under the study depends upon the perception of the observer (Wilson, 2010;
Antwi & Hamza, 2015). Therefore, subjectivists advocate for diversity on how the studied object is viewed (Bahari, 2010; Tuli, 2010; Levers, 2013).
3.2.2 Epistemology
Epistemology explains the nature of knowledge, and how it gets established (Schommer‐
Aikins & Easter, 2006; Littlejohn & Foss, 2009; Scotland, 2012). The current study acknowledges the presence of the following epistemological perspectives: pragmatism, positivism, realism, interpretivism and post-positivism. However, the study chose Positivism as its epistemological stance (Wilson, 2010; Edirisingha, 2012). Studies by Taylor and Medina (2013), and Aliyu, Bello, Kasim and Martin (2014) suggest that positivism puts an emphasis on empirical data and scientific procedures for conducting research. Furthermore, under positivism, the output of the research work is verifiable (Tuli, 2010). Moreover, positivists advocate for the independence of the research knowledge from the researcher (Krauss, 2005; Gray, 2014). These are the key things embraced by the current study, which make the positivist perspective relevant to it.
The current study is against Interpretivism because the perspective is subjective in nature (Kelliher, 2005; Collins, 2010; Collis & Hussey, 2014). In this regard, this school of thought affiliates the output of research with the researcher (Black, 2006; Walsham, 2006;
Crowther & Lancaster, 2008). The knowledge emerges through social constructions and may change if the researcher changes (Goldkuhl, 2012; Chowdhury, 2014; Rowlands, 2005; Thanh & Thanh, 2015). Arguably, subjectivism is the main weakness of interpretivism.
Another epistemology is Pragmatism, which discovers new knowledge through multiple methods and embraces multiple realities (Goldkuhl, 2012; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill,
2012). This study disputes pragmatism‟s epistemological stance. This is because pragmatism is vague on its approach for searching a new knowledge (Goldkuhl, 2012;
Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). Pragmatism can be qualitative or quantitative depending on the context of the study (Meyers, 2005; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005;
Balarabe Kura, 2012; Dalsgaard, 2014). Although the current study uses mixed methods, each approach stands independently, and the quantitative approach is the baseline.
In another epistemology known as Critical theory, the intention of the theory is to address complex subjects in social and economic structures (Myers & Klein, 2011; Fletcher, 2017).
The current study does not support the critical theory epistemological stance because it carries the following assumptions: the knowledge value is determined by the influence of a person in advocacy, the knowledge is constructed through social agents, and the knowledge is developed based on the social power rather than the reality (Maroun, 2012;
Scotland, 2012). The ontology of the critical theory is a socially created truth. The interpretation of the knowledge depends on social conditioning (Myers & Klein, 2011).
According to Scotland (2012); critical theorists use engagement methods in research, hence, this epistemology is unfit for the current study.
The last epistemology is Post-positivism, which explores issues in the context of majority experience and acceptance (Panhwar, Ansari, & Shah, 2017). This study is equally against post-positivism‟s epistemological stance. The main weakness which makes this perspective unfit for the current study is its suggestion that the existing knowledge can be known imperfectly (Mkansi & Acheampong, 2012; Scotland, 2012). Accordingly, it advocates methodological pluralism with the assumption that one method is inadequate (Mkansi &
Acheampong, 2012). This epistemological view is vague for problem solving because it advocates imperfect and probabilistic realism (Sobh & Perry, 2006). The current study requires a clear reality.
3.2.3 Selected methodology and measurement of variables
This study adopted advanced quantitative research methods. With these methods, the study was able to abide to the chosen ontology (objectivism) and epistemology (positivism) during its operations (Williams, 2007; Dulock, 1993). Therefore, it is the understanding of this study that the relationships between studied variables can be established explicitly.
Moreover, following the quantitative nature of the current study, the survey research
strategy is adopted. The strategy enabled the collection of data from a large number of respondents, in a given time schedule. In this case, the study used the structured survey questionnaire in the collection of the main data. Furthermore, the survey strategy facilitated the testing of relationships proposed through the variables of the conceptual framework presented in Figure 2-7, because all variables were presented in measurable terms. To abide by key principles of quantitative studies, it is mandatory to define measurements applicable to variables identified through section 2.5, and reintroduced in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Variables and their measurement
Variable Information measured Scale
Age The age group of the respondent Likert scale
Gender The gender category Categorical data
Experience in business The experience of the taxpayer in business, grouped in years
Likert scale
Education The acquired level of education Likert scale
Probability of being reported by others
The extent to which the taxpayer perceives that s/he will be reported by others for the non-use of EFDs or the perceived impact of whistle-blowers
Likert scale
Perceived level of punishment
The perception of the taxpayer on the severity of the punishment due to non-compliance
Likert scale
EFD Use The perceived rate of use Likert scale
System detection ability The extent to which the taxpayer perceives that the tax system is effective in detecting non-compliance
Likert scale
The perceived level of transparency of the tax system
The extent to which the taxpayer perceives the tax system is transparent in its operation
Likert scale
The perceived level of audit Effectiveness
The extent to which the taxpayer perceives the audit activity as effective
Likert scale
Perceived level of fairness The extent to which the taxpayer perceives tax procedures as fair
Likert scale
Tax compliance The extent to which the taxpayer believes they comply with the tax law
Likert scale
Source: (Author’s Design, 2020)