CHECKLIST FOR AXIOLOGICAL EXPERTISE OF PEDAGOGICAL RESEARCH: FROM THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION TO EMPIRICAL APPROBATION

Abstract

The problem of methodological eclecticism in pedagogical research, manifested in the gap between declared humanistic values and the empirical tools employed, remains unresolved in contemporary pedagogy methodology. The lack of operational means for diagnosing axiological consistency complicates the examination of dissertations and the training of research and pedagogical personnel. The aim of the study is to develop, theoretically justify, and empirically test a checklist for axiological expertise as a tool for diagnosing the consistency between the value core of a pedagogical study and its empirical methods. The research methodology is based on axiological-anthropological reconstruction, theoretical literature analysis, and expert validation. The study involved 12 experts – Doctors and Candidates of Pedagogical Sciences – who evaluated 20 dissertations in specializations 5.8.1 and 5.8.2. As a result, a checklist comprising 12 criteria across six blocks was developed: explication of the axiological core, consistency of goal-setting, adequacy of empirical methods, presence of axiological reflection, conceptual coherence of the apparatus, and procedural transparency. Kendall's concordance coefficient for the final scores was W = 0.71 (χ² = 93.72, df = 11, p < 0.001), confirming high consistency of expert judgments and the reliability of the tool. Three types of axiological conflicts were identified: "declarative humanism" (50% of the sample), "anthropological rupture" (30%), and "methodological inertia" (75%). The developed checklist can be used by dissertation committees, in the training of research and pedagogical personnel, and as a means of methodological self-reflection for researchers.