Objective: This study addresses a critical gap in social research methodology the persistent lack of attention to philosophical positions and the absence of a systematic comparative procedure for evaluating conventional social assessment methods. Despite the diversity of available social evaluation tools, no unified framework has been established to guide researchers in selecting appropriate methods based on ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations. The primary objective of this research is to provide a comprehensive comparative assessment of five common social assessment methods Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Social Audit (SA), Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA), and Social Return on Investment (SROI) by examining their philosophical underpinnings and positioning within a structured research process framework. The study seeks to answer five fundamental questions: (1) What is the ultimate goal of social dimension research? (2) What is the fundamental nature and reality of social research? (3) What constitutes an explanation of the reality (philosophical positions) of social research? (4) What does the actual information of choosing the right tool to evaluate the social dimension show? (5) How can we identify the right tool for achieving research goals?



Methodology: This study adopts an exploratory, descriptive-comparative design. The methodological approach employs George F. Brady’s comparative method, which consists of four sequential stages: description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison. Data were collected from secondary sources, including peer-reviewed articles, books, electronic resources, and official publications. In the description phase, five common social assessment methods were documented based on available evidence and information. The interpretation phase involved critical analysis of the collected data. The juxtaposition stage classified the prepared information according to the layers of Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill’s (2009) “Research Onion” framework, which includes philosophy, paradigm, approach, strategy, choices (methodological choice), time horizon, and techniques/procedures. Finally, the comparison phase systematically adapted and compared the five methods across these layers to identify similarities, differences, and contextual applicability. The research onion framework was strategically selected because it provides a complete, multi-layered insight into the research process, enabling systematic unveiling of each method’s internal logic from philosophical assumptions to data collection techniques.



Results: The comparative analysis reveals that the five social assessment methods exhibit both significant similarities and marked differences across the research onion layers.



Philosophical Layer (Layer 1): The findings demonstrate that CSR, SIA, and SLCA employ both positivist and interpretative philosophies, with interpretive dominance due to the qualitative nature of most social values and effects. Positivism which assumes reality exists externally and can be measured objectively is reflected in the use of quantitative indicators and statistical analysis. Interpretative which focuses on understanding subjective social reality is evident in participatory techniques and meaning-oriented approaches. Pragmatism, which combines both philosophies to address ambiguous research questions, is applied in methods requiring flexibility. SA relies predominantly on interpretative due to its participatory techniques and stakeholder engagement processes. SROI is primarily grounded in positivism because it quantifies social outcomes using monetary values and cost-benefit ratios.



Approach Layer (Layer 2): SA adopts an inductive approach, starting from observation and description leading to theory development. SROI employs a deductive approach, testing hypotheses through measurable outcomes. CSR, SIA, and SLCA use a combined approach (inductive-deductive) with inductive dominance to leverage the strengths of both paradigms while compensating for limitations.



Strategy Layer (Layer 3): Case study strategy is identified as the optimal choice for all five methods because it enables extensive, in-depth investigation of cases in real contexts. CSR additionally utilizes action research strategy to facilitate coordination between researcher and organization. SROI incorporates survey strategy to collect large-scale quantitative data answering questions of who, where, when, and how.



Choices Layer (Layer 4): Given that social aspects are inherently “soft” in nature, mono-method (solely quantitative or qualitative) approaches cannot accurately capture social effects. Consequently, all five methods employ mixed-method designs (integrating both quantitative and qualitative techniques) to compensate for individual method limitations and eliminate data gaps. Multi-method research using both data types but analyzed from a single perspective is less common in these tools.



Time Horizon Layer (Layer 5): All five methods adopt cross-sectional designs, examining processes, projects, programs, or activities within a specific time period rather than longitudinal designs tracking changes over extended durations.



Techniques and Procedures Layer (Layer 6): CSR utilizes interviews, questionnaires, CSR rankings, reports, and quantification of CSR values. SIA employs rural participatory assessment (PRA) methods, quantitative surveys (questionnaires, statistics), and qualitative tools (participatory observation, group interviews, mapping). SA relies on key documents, second-hand reports, participatory techniques, surveys, focus group discussions, community meetings, and public records. SLCA uses PRA techniques, field research, interviews, questionnaires, quantitative methods supported by mathematical/statistical relationships, and database centers. SROI quantifies social benefit values, maps social impacts, and uses questionnaires with scoring systems.



Comparative Characteristics: The study further identifies distinguishing features across methods. Regarding assessment type, CSR and SIA are primarily evaluative (retrospective), while SLCA and SROI include forecasting elements. Timing of conduct varies: SIA and SLCA are often conducted before project initiation; SA and CSR are applied during processes; SROI is frequently carried out on an annual basis alongside financial accounting. Indicator types include quantitative, semi-quantitative, qualitative, intermediate point, and endpoint (performance) measures. Database support exists for CSR, SIA, SA, and SROI but not for SLCA. Data collection encompasses local knowledge (all methods), participatory processes (CSR, SIA, SA, SLCA), and site-specific data (CSR, SIA, SA, SROI). Assessment goals include planning (CSR, SIA, SLCA), decision-making (SIA, SA), and management (CSR, SA, SROI).



Conclusion: This study makes several theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it demonstrates that philosophical positions are not merely abstract considerations but essential guiding factors that determine data collection, analysis, and interpretation in social research. The research onion framework, combined with Brady’s comparative method, provides a systemic process that addresses research questions by unveiling each method’s internal layers sequentially. Practically, the results eliminate ambiguity regarding the limitations, advantages, and usage contexts of conventional social assessment methods. Researchers can now select appropriate tools based on their specific research questions, subject matter, scope, and required outcomes rather than adhering rigidly to a single method. The study reveals that no single method is universally superior; rather, effectiveness depends on alignment between philosophical assumptions, methodological choices, and research objectives. The adaptive interaction among these tools encourages intellectual flexibility in research design. However, limitations include restricted access to specialized articles and the nascent state of philosophical research in social assessment. Future research should deepen comparative analyses, develop missing database support (e.g., for SLCA), and further integrate social dimension evaluation into sustainability frameworks. Ultimately, advancing social assessment methods enhances social sustainability and improves social studies outcomes through validated knowledge production.



Keywords: Research onion; Philosophical positions; Social assessment; Comparative assessment; Positivism; Interpretivism; Pragmatism; CSR; SIA; SA; SLCA; SROI.