Narrative Criticism of Positivist Researches of Humanities from the Point of View of Generalizability and Reliability of Measures with the Suggestion of Replacing McDonald's Omega (Case Study: Marketing Researches)

Scientific research includes philosophical, procedural, and ethical steps, and studies with a positivist philosophical premise, which show the recent meta-method reviews, still include a share of more than 70% of studies in humanities and social sciences. From a comparative point of view, it dictates a quantitative approach to researchers. In this approach, entering the field of measurement and then discussing the identification of metrics and linking them with variables or at a more abstract level with structures is, if not the most important, one of the most prominent cases. The vagueness and conceptual immanence of these structures in these sciences makes it more and more difficult for researchers to fully realize validity and reliability. With a scientific review and in a narrative format, focusing on the reliability aspect and the generalizability aspect of the results, the researcher enumerates the weak but unfortunately very common indicators in Iran research literature. Then, with an evaluative and pathological point of view, it proposes a suitable solution to overcome this procedural structural weakness by analyzing and introducing a suitable and operational alternative for it, i.e. McDonald's Omega Coefficient. It was estimated that the results of the present study will create a stable and satisfying perspective in changing the viewpoint of researchers in related humanities fields.