By Ron Leslie

We often begin a Professional Doctorate with a clear problem to explore, yet rarely pause to consider the values shaping why that problem matters to us. Beneath the familiar terrain of ontology, epistemology, and methodology lies axiology, the often-unspoken dimension of research that reflects what we care about, what we prioritise, and how we judge impact. For ProfDoc PGRs as practitioner-scholars, these values are not abstract, they are lived through professional roles, relationships, and responsibilities. This article by Ron Leslie invites you to move from silence to insight by noticing, questioning, and making explicit the values that quietly guide your research, strengthening both its integrity and its relevance to practice.

Ron Leslie is a Registered Nurse with over 20 years of experience in the NHS, specialising in cardiology. He is currently in the final year of his Professional Doctorate, where his research focuses on advance care planning in heart failure, reflecting his commitment to improving patient-centred care in complex clinical contexts.

Introduction

Practitioner scholars begin our doctoral journey enthused by a specific area of interest or a research problem which we would like to examine, potentially even address. This entry point to doctorate level research is not the start of our academic or cognitive journey, with all of our previous experience and learning (academic, professional and social) having contributed to the personal, practitioner and scholarly identity we inhabit as a novice researcher.

A researcher’s axiology often hides in plain sight, quietly shaping the values that underpin workplace research. For Professional Doctorate researchers, these assumptions influence what we consider important, ethical, and meaningful, yet they rarely surface in our everyday conversations. This blog is deliberately designed as a dialogue with the self, offering space to explore how axiological questions invite deeper reflexivity. By asking “why do my values matter here?”, we uncover the silent architecture guiding our practice and scholarship.

Below is an example of a conversation between a Researcher and a Supervisor, which aims to stimulate thoughts on how and when we might consider our own axiology and its impact on the research we undertake.

The conversation

Researcher:

 I am starting to grasp the concepts of ontology, epistemology and methodology, but this somehow feels detached from me. How does a person fit into their own research?

Supervisor:

When we design research, we often speak of ontology (what exists), epistemology (how we know), and methodology (how we study). Yet there is a quieter, often overlooked dimension: axiology, our values and ethical stance. Too often, axiology remains silent, hidden beneath procedural ethics and technical design. This silence matters. When values go unspoken, they still shape our choices; without reflection, they can distort research purpose, process, and impact.

For practitioner-scholars, breaking this silence is essential. Research is never neutral. It is embedded in real-world practice, relationships, and contexts where values are lived realities. Ignoring axiology risks blind spots that undermine credibility and relevance. Making values visible strengthens integrity and ensures research aligns with what truly matters.

Researcher:

That makes a lot of sense. I don’t remember covering axiology, if we have, it didn’t seem as important as other elements of the research process.

Supervisor:

Axiology tends to operate in the shadows because:

• Research training prioritises ontology and methodology, leaving values assumed rather than examined.
• Institutional processes can sometimes reduce ethics to compliance, focusing on consent forms and risk assessments rather than deeper value commitments.
• Professional norms emphasise neutrality, which can make practitioner-scholars hesitant to acknowledge their own values.
• Time pressures and pragmatic constraints push values aside in favour of “getting the research done.”

This invisibility is problematic. When values remain implicit, they still shape decisions, but without reflection, they can lead to unintended bias or ethical misalignment. Surfacing axiology requires deliberate effort: naming values, questioning assumptions, and embedding them into design and practice.

Researcher:

I see, so axiology is an important factor in research design and performance but not always made as explicit as it should be.

Supervisor:

Axiology is not an ‘academic’ add-on to research, it is foundational. Every choice you make reflects your values:

• Why this topic and not another?
• Who gets a voice in your study?
• What counts as valid knowledge?
• How do you share findings and with whom?

For practitioner-scholars, values are inseparable from professional identity. Research that ignores axiology risks being technically sound but ethically hollow. Conversely, research that makes values explicit is more credible, relevant, and impactful because it aligns scholarly work with real-world commitments.

Researcher:

What happens if I don’t make my axiology clear, will my thesis just not read as well?

Supervisor:

Failing to consider axiology can have serious consequences:

• Ethical blind spots: Research may comply procedurally but fail morally, such as excluding marginalised voices or reinforcing inequities.
• Misaligned impact: Findings may serve organisational agendas rather than the communities or practices they aim to benefit.
• Loss of trust: Participants and stakeholders may perceive research as extractive or disconnected from their realities.
• Distorted interpretation: Hidden values can bias analysis, privilege certain narratives while silencing others.
• Professional credibility risks: For practitioner-scholars, ignoring values undermines the integrity of practice-based research and its claim to relevance.
• Silencing dissonance: Ignoring findings that challenge organisational or disciplinary norms because they feel uncomfortable or require a change in practice or policy.

When our values remain unheard, research decisions can drift from their purpose and lose focus on meaning and utility. Listening deeply opens space to realign with what truly matters.

Researcher:

That makes a lot of sense, why do you think that axiology is not more prominently explored in publications and academic discourse?

Supervisor:

Bringing axiology, the values and ethical stance that shape our research out of silence and into the frame is not always easy. Common challenges include:

• Competing priorities: Institutional agendas often favour efficiency and measurable outcomes, while your values may emphasise dignity, inclusion, or empowerment.
• Power dynamics: Valuing participant voice can clash with organisational hierarchies or academic structures.
• Practical constraints: Time, funding, and policy can quietly reshape value-driven approaches unless we stay attentive.
• Emotional labour: Engaging deeply with lived experiences, especially in sensitive contexts, demands care and strategies for wellbeing.
• Cultural tensions: Practitioner values like care or advocacy may conflict with academic norms of detachment or rigid deadlines.

These challenges invite us to listen more deeply: to the values shaping our choices, to voices that risk being muted, and to the quiet forces influencing our research. In that listening, axiology moves from silence to presence.

Researcher:

They are all very real challenges, but there must be strategies that can used to overcome them.

Supervisor:

Resolving value tensions begins with acknowledgement. Pretending they do not exist only deepens ethical risk. Start by mapping the tension: What values are in conflict? For example, your commitment to participant autonomy may clash with organisational demands for standardised reporting. Once identified, consider negotiation strategies:

• Transparency: Document the tension in your research notes and, where appropriate, in your methodology section.
• Dialogue: Engage DProf team members, supervisors, ethics committees, and stakeholders in open conversations about competing priorities.
• Compromise without compromise of integrity: Seek creative solutions, such as adapting reporting formats to meet institutional needs while preserving participant voice.
• Reflexivity: Continually ask, “Whose interests are being served?” and adjust decisions to maintain alignment with core ethical commitments.

Value tensions are not signs of failure; they are opportunities to demonstrate integrity and leadership in applied research.

Researcher:

How would you recommend I consider and address axiology during my research?

Supervisor:

To move axiology from hidden to explicit, use value-mapping tools throughout your research process:

1. Value identification grid

Create a simple table with three columns:

• Core Values (e.g., dignity, equity, empowerment)
• Research decisions influenced (e.g., topic choice, participant recruitment)
• Potential tensions (e.g., institutional priorities vs. inclusivity)

2. Reflexive journaling prompts

Use prompts such as:

• “What assumptions about ‘good research’ am I bringing into this project?”
• “How do my professional values influence what I consider important?”
• “Where do I feel tension between my values and institutional expectations?”

3. Axiology alignment checklist

Before finalising your design, ask:

• Does my research question reflect my stated values?
• Are my methods consistent with my ethical commitments?
• Will my dissemination strategy benefit those most affected by the research?

Researcher:

Do you have any tips to help do this when completing a doctorate?

Supervisor:

To raise your axiological awareness, you could use these prompts:

At the design stage:

• What values are driving my choice of topic?
• Who benefits from this research, and who might be excluded?
• How do my professional commitments influence my research aims?

During data collection:

• How do my values shape my relationship with participants?
• Am I privileging certain voices or perspectives? Why?

In analysis and interpretation:

• How do my values influence what I see as significant?
• Am I open to findings that challenge my assumptions?

For dissemination:

• Who needs to hear these findings most?
• How do I share results in ways that align with my ethical commitments?

Researcher:

How does all of this relate to the philosophical underpinnings of research methodologies?

Supervisor:

Philosopher Martin Heidegger reminds us that silence is not emptiness but a way of listening, a space where meaning can emerge. In research, axiology often occupies this silent space: present yet unarticulated. Breaking the silence does not mean filling it with noise or jargon. It means pausing, listening, and naming the values that guide our decisions. Think of silence as an invitation:

• To notice what is shaping your choices
• To dwell with your commitments before acting
• To let values speak consciously rather than unconsciously

Heidegger’s insight reframes axiology as a practice of listening. Silence is not about ignoring values, it is about creating space for them to speak. In research, this means:

• Pausing before decisions
• Asking what matters most
• Letting values guide design, analysis, and dissemination

Breaking the silence is not about making noise. It is about listening deeply and acting with integrity.

Researcher:

Thank you for sharing your insights, you have given me a lot to think about.

Supervisor:

My pleasure, I will leave you with a closing reflection.

Axiology is the hidden compass of research. For practitioner-scholars, making it visible strengthens integrity, relevance, and impact. By asking the right questions and embedding values consciously, you move from compliance to commitment and research that truly matters.

Conclusion

Making axiology visible is more than theory; it is a practice of integrity. Take time to notice how your values shape your research decisions. Share these reflections with peers or supervisors, because opening this dialogue strengthens both scholarship and professional practice. By engaging with axiology consciously, you create research that is rigorous, relevant, and deeply aligned with what matters most. Your values are never passive; they are powerful because, as a Professional Doctorate researcher, you can shape practice and influence change.