CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES

Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 26) describe research strategy to mean a general orientation to the conduct of business research. Generally, the two main types of research strategies established in literature are:

i. Quantitative, and ii. Qualitative

According to Bryman and Bell (2011), quantitative research on one hand can be said to be the research strategy that emphasizes quantification both in data gathering and

The Internal Audit Function as a Corporate Governance Mechanism in a Developing Economy: An Empirical Study of the Nigerian Financial Sector. Page 176 analysis. Qualitative research on the other hand usually emphasizes words instead of quantification in data collection and analysis. This indicates that quantitative researchers collect and analyse numeric data, while qualitative researchers use non-numeric data, which may also include images and video (Rose et al., 2015).Mayoh and Onwuegbuzie (2015, p. 96) maintain that qualitative researcher views data as the product of interaction between research and participant.

Aside from the nature of data, other common attributes used to differentiate the two research strategy categories is the strategy perspective on, or relationship to theory. While quantitative approach is usually concerned with theory testing (i.e deductive), qualitative is usually linked with theory building (i.e. inductive). In line with the Bryman and Bell (2011)’s word of caution on this line of demarcation between the two approaches, Rose et al. (2015) affirm that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research strategy is not so precise, as quantitative research can as well be adopted for inductive, just as qualitative can also be deductive in some situation.

Two clear lines of distinction between the two approaches as indicated by Rose et al. (2015) are that:

i. quantitative research is commonly characterized as having structured, predetermined and fixed research designs, whereas qualitative research is more flexible and evolving.

ii. quantitative research is often characterized as ‘’variable-orientation’’ by operationalizing concept of interest as measurable attributes or variables and specifying the expected linkages between them.

In addition, with a view to making a generalization from the totality of whatever is being investigated, a fractional portion of the aggregate can be drawn, investigated and findings there from used as a basis for generalization for the entire object through the process of statistical inference. Qualitative approach unlike quantitative however focuses on heterogeneity and peculiarity of individual cases, and thus a smaller group is the focus. Therefore facilitating an in-depth knowledge of a focused group. The table

The Internal Audit Function as a Corporate Governance Mechanism in a Developing Economy: An Empirical Study of the Nigerian Financial Sector. Page 177 below as adapted from Rose et al. (2015) gives a summary of the salient distinguishing features of the two approaches

Table: 5.1: Qualitative vs Quantitative research (adapted from Rose et al., 2015)

To differentiate between the two research approaches, Bryman and Bell (2011) applies the line of epistemology and ontological orientation as below:

Quantitative Qualitative Principal orientation on

theory

Deductive (i.e. theory- testing)

Inductive (i.e. theory generation)

Epistemological orientation Natural science

(particularly positivism)

Interpretivism

Ontological orientation Objectivism Constructionism

Table: 5.2: Qualitative vs Quantitative research (adapted from Bryman & Bell, 2011)

Arising from the comparison of the two research approaches as summarized in the above tables is a question of whether it is possible to apply both paradigms in a singular research work so as to take complimentary advantages such a combination can avail. Johnson et al. (2007) indicate that debates about singular or universal truths or approaches to viewing the world versus multiple or relative truths versus balances or

S/n Features Quantitative Qualitative

i. Data type Numeric Non-numeric

ii. Theory relationship

Deductive Inductive

iii. Procedure Structured, pre-specified and fixed

Emergent, and flexible

iv. Focus Aggregate properties and

statistical inference

Concerned with focused and in-depth observation

v. Interference No researcher interference in the process

Researcher is closely involved.

The Internal Audit Function as a Corporate Governance Mechanism in a Developing Economy: An Empirical Study of the Nigerian Financial Sector. Page 178 combination of same dates back to ancient western philosophy. As the debate continues so does it continue to affect how knowledge is viewed. ‘’This debate continues to affect how we view knowledge, what we look for, what we expect to find, and how we believe we are going to go about finding and justifying ‘’knowledge’’ (Johnson et al., 2007.p. 113).

In terms of relationship with theories, the approach adopted under this study is deductive (i.e. ‘’theory testing”). As established in chapter 3 of this study, three theories (Agency theory, TCE theory and Institutional theory) constitute the theoretical paradigm for the study. On the agency theory, the main assumption of the theory, that IAF is a contracting cost, jointly applicable to both the management (in his position as agent of the board), and to the board (as principal or nominee of the principal-the shareholders) are put to tests in this study. Specifically, and in line with the extensive discussions made under the theoretical background of the study (chapter 3), the contracting cost is borne by the principal as monitoring costs, necessitated by the need to ensure alignment of actions on the part of the agent. To agent, the cost is predicted as bonding, a necessary cost to signal to the principal that they are carrying out their instructions in line with their envisioned objectives, and also to ensure retention of their agency status. The issue of IAF’s independence positioned as the key concern to be addressed under the study’s first research question - ‘’what is the level of independence enjoyed by IAF in the Nigerian financial sector’’? is addressed by testing the reliability of the fundamentals of agency theory put forward by Adams (1994) as a paradigm for the essence of IAF in organisations where principal-agency condition exists. Given the thin line of demarcation between IAF’s independence and individual IAs’ objectivity as discussed in chapter four however, the issue of IAs’ objectivity (the focus of research question 3) is also addressed using Agency theory.

Similarly, research questions 2 (“To what extent are the internal audit functions in the Nigerian financial sector performing their roles in conformity with the IIA standards?’’) and 4 (“To what extent are internal auditors in the Nigerian financial sector competent in fulfilling their expected roles?’’) of the study are investigated by

The Internal Audit Function as a Corporate Governance Mechanism in a Developing Economy: An Empirical Study of the Nigerian Financial Sector. Page 179 applying the canons of Institutional theory. The TCE is however applied for IAF’s sourcing decision and its impact on IAF’s independence.

Whereas deductive research stance established for the study in the above exposition may seem conflicting with its earlier epistemological and ontological direction of constructionism, and an indication towards mixed methods; the interwovenness of epistemological positions with research strategy domains is a rationalization. In addition, though the study substantially requires primary data gathered from a survey with the use of a well-piloted questionnaire administered on the sampled firms’ CAEs and some senior members of their teams, a face to face semi-structured interview also conducted for the selected firms’ CAEs, in the sector further indicates a combination of two data collection methods. The face-to-face interview eventually conducted with four CAEs borne out of the desire for in-depth insights implies a combination of numeric and non-numeric data sets for the study. This is what is referred to as data triangulation, an established form of triangulation according to Denzin (1978), and a pointer towards mixed method research (MRR).

Mixing of methods may occur in a study if the researcher decides it will help make the data collection and analysis more accurate or the inferences more useful (Rocco et al., 2003). Consideration of interview method to complement the questionnaire survey method of collecting data for the study arose from the researcher’s desire for precision and robustness of evidences for inferences. Quantitative or qualitative components may be used equally, or one may be more dominant (Rocco et al., 2003. P. 22). In this study however, quantitative component is dominant considering its tremendous application on the study’s research questions and the complementing application of qualitative method. The various benefits of MMR (which includes data integrity and widened research horizon) as highlighted in the next section are some of the justification for this strategy.