Scribd
Upload
130 views2 pages

3.2 Research Philosophy and Paradigm

3.2 Research Philosophy and Paradigm

Uploaded by

ezekiel nyamu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
130 views2 pages

3.2 Research Philosophy and Paradigm

3.2 Research Philosophy and Paradigm

Uploaded by

ezekiel nyamu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

3.

2 Research Philosophy and Paradigm


A research paradigm has been defined by Guba and Lincoln (1994, Pp. 107) as “a basic set of
beliefs or worldview that guides research action or an investigation”. This worldview is the
viewpoint from which the researcher provides explanation of the process of investigation.
Several paradigms have emerged including Pragmatism, Critical Realist, Advocacy,
Positivism, Interpretive Realism (Creswell, 2013; Mingers, 2006; Molis, 2008; Saunders,
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). Each of these paradigms are guided by four components
explained by Guba and Lincoln (1994) as the ontology which talks about what reality is;
epistemology which defines how we know something; axiology meaning relationships
between human beings and their environment; and finally, the methodology which prescribes
how we must go about finding out the reality. The two most dominant paradigms which are
used the business studies are the positivist and interpretivist paradigms.
3.2.1 Positivist Paradigm
The positivist paradigm expresses a worldview to research, which is substantiated in
scientific method of investigation. It is used to examine basis and consequence linkage in
nature. ‘‘It is the preferred worldview for research, which interprets observations in terms of
facts or entities that are measurable’’ (Fadhel, 2002). The positivist paradigm of research has
the ontology that there is a single and objective reality; positivists also believe that in terms of
epistemology, knowledge generated is exterior and free of individuals’ explanations of it; in
terms of methodology, positivists believe that science is the most valid approach to carry out
a research and follows a quantitative research methodology (Creswell, 2009; Saunders, Lewis
& Thornhill, 2009).
Research positioned in the positivist paradigm are quantitative in nature and depends on
deductive reasoning, hypotheses design and testing to derive decisions. Thus, explanations
and predictions are made centered on assessable results. These assessable results are
undergirded by four assumptions clarified by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000), as
determinism, empiricism, parsimony and generalisability. First, determinism means that the
events we observe are caused by other factors. The second assumption of empiricism means
that the proper investigation of research problem requires the collection of verifiable
empirical data which supports the theoretical framework chosen for the research and enables
the testing of formulated hypotheses. Third, in assuming parsimony, the positivist paradigm
refers to the researcher’s attempts to explain the phenomenon under study in the most
economical way possible. Finally, the generalisability assumptions states that the research
results obtained within the positivist paradigm, in one context, should be applicable to other
situations by inductive inferences.
3.2.2 Interpretivist Paradigm
Alternatively, the interpretivist paradigm holds the assumption that researchers are allowed to
develop subjective meanings from individual’s experiences towards certain issues in order to
understand a certain phenomenon (Creswell, 2009). The bedrock of this research paradigm is
qualitative approach; the researcher is directly involved in the study object hence, the
researcher’s ability to construe the import of themes attached to the occurrence is important.
The interdependence and shared contact of the investigator and his respondents is key
(Hudson & Ozanne, 1988). Distinct from the positivists, the interpretivists avoid rigid
structural framework and embrace personal and flexible research arrangements to what is
apparently described as reality (Carson, Gilmore, Perry, &Gronhaug, 2001).

Subjectivist epistemology, relativist ontology, a naturalist methodology and balanced


axiology are the tenets of this paradigm. Subjectivist epistemology means that researchers
make sense of their data collected from participant using their own discernment. According to
Chalmers, Manley & Wasserman (2005), relativist ontology assumption expresses the believe
that there are multiple realities about a study occurrence. The naturalist methodology
assumption means the researcher utilises data collected by means of interviews, dialogues,
observations among others where the investigator acts as a participant spectator (Carr &
Kemmis, 1986). Finally, the balanced axiology denotes the study results reveal the beliefs of
the investigator, and attempts to present a well-adjusted report of the outcomes.
After examining both the positivist and interpretivist paradigms, this study adopted the
positivist paradigm. A quantitative approach was employed to investigate and generalize the
findings concerning the factors influencing VAT compliance among SMEs in Mbeya City.
This methodology enabled the study to produce objective, measurable, and generalizable
results, providing a robust foundation for understanding and enhancing VAT compliance
among these businesses.

You might also like