Just saw it.

So I can just continue from the point where I'm at because actually it's just the beginning

of the lecture.

Yeah, thanks for the notion guys.

Okay, so I'll continue.

Furthermore, in positive thinking, dualistic thinking is accepted.

So there is no difference and in post positivist it's challenged.

Positiveists are value problem solving.

So they're trying to.

And the post positivist has a value problem setting.

Positiveists are more associated with natural scientists and post positivists are more

associated with arts.

So human humanities scientists.

Okay.

What makes research good?

Indicator good research by paradigm.

So half subjectivity has been managed.

Positive thinking is object objectivity, conclusions on based on observable phenomena.

And they think that it's not influenced by emotions, personal prejudices or subjectivities.

In post positivist thinking, it's neutrality subjectivity is recognized and negotiated

in a manner that attempts to attempt to avoid bias.

And also subjectivity was transparency, so they acceptance and disclosure of subjective

positioning and how it might impact on the research process and all of that is part

of the research just accepting it and disclosing it.

Our methods of roast was consistency.

So there in positive thinking, reliability is important.

It was internal consistency.

A test, three tests consistency, interrater consistency, etc.

And in post positivists, it's dependability.

So they accept that reliability in studies with people might not be possible because it's

around people and this they change and it always changes.

But it has that methods are systematic, well documented and designed to account for subjectivity.

So they also of course want reliability, but they accept that sometimes it's not possible

especially when working with people.

Very good indicators are so has the two essence been captured for positivists validity.

Concerned was correctness of conclusions and whether methods actually measure what we

expect them to measure.

And for post positivists is authenticity.

Concerned was true.

While recognizing that multiple truths make sense.

It's also concerned was describing the structure of the experience in a manner that is true

to the experience.

Our findings applicable outside the immediate frame of reference.

So positivists, refrigerators, generalizability, whether findings and or conclusions from

a sample setting or group are applicable to a larger population, different settings

or another group.

So whether it's generalizable and the post positivist or more concerned was whether it's

transferable to transferability, whether findings and conclusions from a sample setting

or group lead to lessons that lessons learned that may be germane to a larger population.

So whether you can transfer those findings.