Question

A study by Carol (2019) sought to determine the effect of audit committee characteristics on fraud reduction in state ministries in Kenya. Guided by a positivist paradigm, a descriptive research design was employed in examining a population of 20 government ministries in Kenya. Secondary data sources were used to enhance objectiveness of the findings and the quantitative data was used to test the research hypothesis. Panel data was obtained from; Treasury, Transparency International and the ministries whereby data on the specific variables under investigation was extracted from annual reports, financial statements and records. A document analysis guide was prepared to guide the researcher in collection of data on audit committee characteristics and number of fraud incidences in all the 20 state ministries in Kenya. Data was analyzed using Stata data analysis and statistical software. Preceding the data analysis, the raw data collected was prepared for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to profile the unit of analysis. To test the research hypothesis on the effect of audit committee characteristics on fraud reduction, the study adopted fixed effects panel data model. Post and pre estimation tests for any regression model were performed. The results indicate that number of audit committee meetings (β=-0.4385; p < 0.05) had negative and significant effect on the incidences of fraud and expertise of the audit committees (β=-0.4593; p < 0.05) had negative and significant effect on the incidences of fraud in the state ministries. The study also established that tenure of the audit committees had a significant positive effect on incidences of fraud in the state ministries in Kenya (β=0.3601; p < 0.05). Size of the audit committee (β=1.5284; p > 0.05) and independence of audit committees. (β =-0.1546; p > 0.05) did not have a significant effect on fraud incidences in the ministries. Following the findings from the study, recommendations were made.

Required

Based on the case study, answer the following questions

Explain why the researcher could have preferred a positivist paradigm

[6 MKS]

Answer 1

The positivist paradigm of exploring social reality is based on the idea that one can best gain an understanding of human behaviour through observation and reason. According to the positivist paradigm true knowledge is based on experience of senses and can be obtained by observation and experiment.

The chief strength and advantage of a positivist approach is the vigorous process of setting hypotheses, of empirical experimentation to test these hypotheses, of deep analysis to measure the results, and then the ability to codify the results in a set of laws and predictions.

Positivists believe that knowledge can be “revealed” or “discovered” through the use of the scientific method. The “discovered” knowledge enables us to provide possible explanations of the causes of things that happen in the world. A positivist approach emphasises experimentation, observation, control, measurement, reliability and validity in the processes of research. This implies a quantitative approach.

Positivists argue that the scientific research method produces precise, verifiable, systematic and theoretical answers to the research question or hypothesis. They also suggest that the use of the scientific method provides answers that are neutral and technical and can thus be universalised and generalised to all historical and cultural contexts.

The advantage of a positivist approach to research is that the researcher can cover a wide range of situations in a short period of time