View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The 'JME''s 50-Year Contribution to Moral Education: A Content Analysis 1971-2021

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The 'JME''s 50-Year Contribution to Moral Education: A Content Analysis 1971-2021
Language: English
Authors: Lee, Angela Chi-Ming (ORCID 0000-0002-5678-3863)
Source: Journal of Moral Education. 2022 51(2):117-138.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Periodicals, Moral Values, Moral Development, Cultural Pluralism, Sex Fairness, Teaching Methods, Trend Analysis, Educational History, Educational Trends, Gender Differences, Journal Articles, Authors, Content Analysis
DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2022.2055533
ISSN: 0305-7240
1465-3877
Abstract: In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the "Journal of Moral Education" ("JME") in 2021, this study explores moral education research trends and changes as reflected in "JME" from 1971 to 2021, with special attention to significant changes in the last decade, a period of rapid digitalization and increasingly complex socio-cultural contexts, both local and global. Moral education trends, as reflected in the 1261 articles published in "JME," were investigated using content analysis of disciplinary approaches, keywords, research methodologies, as well as the national and gender backgrounds of the first authors and "JME" editorial teams and trustees. The main findings point to specific and important issues, central research topics, and neglected areas in moral education and development over the past five decades. The review offers "JME" and the field of moral education some considerations for the development of moral education, observations on research method paradigms, insights on gender equity, and attention to cultural diversity.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1350476
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEAIUWR7stJYa1wNUoZ3MHaAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN1HPYsobc689uwUVAIBEICBmiEbElAprYz-4eYivkotebDBcTgd9g4YsFp3JXLTEAhJkNfDYZVOSKsoC5KOOO85Fj_2f1gCNQLc2nrSY_QfDf5tHjUTG_x0wtD3ePAL4Pw2khG3RPmvL_WtNl7Yi4l-NbSpcdXoETxemhalNVvts5hej6tmPX0Hm8RaqxoxQz0q8nhB2WH5b2isyynseHuYnri6cVSO4rPdFbo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0156936835;moe01jun.22;2022May20.04:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0156936835-1">The JME's 50-year contribution to moral education: A content analysis 1971-2021 </title> <p>In celebration of the 50<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the Journal of Moral Education (JME) in 2021, this study explores moral education research trends and changes as reflected in JME from 1971 to 2021, with special attention to significant changes in the last decade, a period of rapid digitalization and increasingly complex socio-cultural contexts, both local and global. Moral education trends, as reflected in the 1261 articles published in JME, were investigated using content analysis of disciplinary approaches, keywords, research methodologies, as well as the national and gender backgrounds of the first authors and JME editorial teams and trustees. The main findings point to specific and important issues, central research topics, and neglected areas in moral education and development over the past five decades. The review offers JME and the field of moral education some considerations for the development of moral education, observations on research method paradigms, insights on gender equity, and attention to cultural diversity.</p> <p>Keywords: Content analysis; Journal of Moral Education; moral education</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The <emph>Journal of Moral Education</emph> (<emph>JME</emph>), which originated in the United Kingdom and was first published in October 1971, has been the leading international and interdisciplinary journal in the field of moral education and development for many years. To celebrate the 40<sups>th</sups> anniversary of publication in 2011, Lee and Taylor ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]) undertook the large task of analysing all papers then published in <emph>JME</emph> (1971–2011) and reviewing supporting documentation on the history and management of the journal to discern the research trends, key concerns and influences, as well as neglected areas in the theory and practice of moral education and development as reflected in its pages.</p> <p>The Journal of Moral Education Trust (JMET) owns and has managerial oversight of the <emph>JME</emph>. Two organisations are affiliated, through reciprocal liaison, to the JMET: The Association for Moral Education (AME), and the Asia-Pacific Network for Moral Education (APNME).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>] In addition, in the last ten years editorship of <emph>JME</emph> has been handed over from Monica Taylor (June 1976-December 2011) and Darcia Narvaez (March 2012-September 2017) to Kristján Kristjánsson (December 2017-). The aims and scope of <emph>JME</emph> have undergone some subtle changes during the last decade, as illustrated by a comparison of the <emph>JME</emph> mission statement, on the cover verso from 2011 and from 2012, which is still current.</p> <p>In 2011, the Volume 40, No. 2, cover verso states:</p> <p>The <emph>Journal of Moral Education</emph> (a Charitable Company Limited by Guarantee) provides a unique interdisciplinary forum for consideration of all aspects of moral education and development across the lifespan. It contains philosophical analyses, reports of empirical research and evaluation of educational strategies which address a range of value issues and the process of valuing, in theory and practice, and also at the social and individual level. The journal regularly includes country-based state-of-the-art papers on moral education and publishes special issues on particular topics.</p> <p>In 2012 (Volume 41, No. 2, cover verso) the second and third sentences were replaced with:</p> <p>The journal encourages submissions across the human sciences and humanities that use a range of methodological approaches and address aspects of moral reasoning, moral emotions, motivation and moral action in various contexts (e.g., cultural, gender, family, schooling, community, leisure, work) and roles (e.g., parent, teacher, student, civic, professional).</p> <p>During the last decade, <emph>JME</emph> has published 13 special issues (SIs) and four issues with special sections highlighting various topics, each with the goal of addressing topical concerns, giving attention to a neglected topic, or exploring new directions. They covered: Moral Education and Environmental Concern (2012), Moral Foundations Theory and Moral Development and Education (2013), 'The Good Child': Anthropological Perspectives on Morality and Childhood (2014), Virtue and Control: Lessons from East and West (2016), Cultivating Morality: The Asia-Pacific Experience (2017), Youth Purpose Around the World (2017), Purpose-in-Action Education (2018), Science, Virtue and Moral Formation (2018), Self, Motivation and Virtue (2019), Moral Exemplarism and Character Education (2019), Wisdom and Moral Education (2020), and Self-Determination Theory, Morality and Education (2020). In 2021 the <emph>JME</emph> published a 50th anniversary Special Issue (Volume 50, No. 1), entitled 'Future Directions for Moral Education, on the 50<sups>th</sups> Anniversary of the <emph>JME'</emph>. In his article, 'Chaos or coherence? Future directions for moral education', James C. Conroy ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]), the guest editor, argued that since human beings are facing various threats and challenges, e.g., the rise of populist politics, the resurgence of widespread racial tensions, the emergence of a global pandemic, and a digitally mediated world, moral education is all the more worthy of our attention. In the following issue, the current <emph>JME</emph> editor, Kristján Kristjánsson ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]), in his article 'Awaiting the Owl of Minerva: Some thoughts on the present and future of moral education' stated that his editorial aspirations are to make the journal more educational, interdisciplinary, and international.</p> <p>To further acknowledge the 50th anniversary of <emph>JME</emph>, we have built upon and reorganized the research database of the 40-year content analysis of <emph>JME</emph> and combined it with an original content analysis of articles from the past decade, in order to show trends and changes over five decades as a whole, and to reveal the history of <emph>JME</emph> and its influence on moral education research.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>] The purpose of this study is thus to explore 50 years of moral education research trends and changes as reflected in <emph>JME</emph> from 1971 to 2021, with especial attention to this last decade. The study's research questions were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent have main disciplinary approaches and sub-disciplinary approaches been represented in <emph>JME</emph>? What trends in disciplinary approaches are represented in <emph>JME</emph> across five decades, as well as any major changes in the last ten years?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent have keywords been represented in <emph>JME</emph>? What trends can be shown in keywords in <emph>JME</emph> over the past five decades and any major changes in the last ten years?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent have different research methodologies and empirical research methods been represented in <emph>JME</emph>? What trends in research methods in <emph>JME</emph> can be observed over the past five decades, as well as any major changes in the last ten years?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the biological gender of <emph>JME</emph> first authors? In which countries and regions are their affiliated institutions located? What trends can be discerned and what major changes are revealed over the last ten years?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the biological gender and country-based institutional affiliation of the <emph>JME</emph> core teams (i.e., editorial board, editors and trustees)? Can any trends be shown across the past five decades, and have there been any major changes in the last ten years?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0156936835-3">Method</hd> <p>This research used quantitative content analysis to investigate moral education trends over 50 years as reflected in <emph>JME</emph> from the very first issue, Volume 1, No. 1 (October, 1971), to Volume 50, No. 4 (December, 2021). The content analysis methodology followed five main steps.</p> <p>First, we amassed the <emph>JME</emph> papers from the last ten years which were analysed in order to preserve continuity with the previous analysis over the first 40 years of publication (Lee & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, we carefully selected five categories relating to the research questions of this article from all those in the research of Lee and Taylor ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]). The original categories of content analysis included disciplinary approaches, research topics (key concepts, curriculum programs, evaluation/assessment instruments, distinguished scholars and their theories, country/countries/region focused on, and special issues), research methods and methodologies, educational levels, authors and their backgrounds, as well as editorial board members and their backgrounds (Lee & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]). Since some sub-categories have not seen significant changes in the past ten years, the categories of content analysis reported on in this paper are as follows: Category 1. disciplinary approaches; Category 2. keywords; Category 3. research methodology and empirical research methods; Category 4. first authors' biological gender, countries, and regions where their affiliated institutions are located; and Category 5. similar information for editors, editorial board members and trustees.</p> <p>Third, we tested inter-coder reliabilities for the updated coding of <emph>JME</emph> articles over the last ten years, aiming to ensure the consistency and validity of agreement between different coders on how to code the same content. The author invited eight Taiwanese scholars/professors with PhD degrees and four graduate students to engage in a one-day workshop on reliability-testing. The coding work was divided up with Categories 1 and 3 coded by those with PhDs, with the author, and Categories 2, 4, 5 coded by the graduate students. High reliability scores were obtained: the inter-coder reliabilities of Categories 1 and 3, were 0.89 ~ 0.94; the inter-coder reliabilities of Categories 2, 4, 5 were 0.99 ~ 1.00.</p> <p>Fourth, after the workshop the scholars and graduate students coded 316 articles for the last ten years according to the above division of labour. This work was undertaken over several months.</p> <p>Fifth, we combined the raw data analysis of 40 years—the 945 articles coded by Lee and Taylor ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>])—with the new data analysis of articles from the last ten years. A total of 1261 articles (50 volumes, 179 issues) were divided into five decades, D1 (1971–1981), D2 (1982–1991), D3 (1992–2001), D4 (2002–2011), and D5 (2012–2021), slightly different from Lee & Taylor's original classification (see, Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. The revised division of each decade for the 50-year analysis of <emph>JME.</emph></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Decade1 (1971–1981)</td><td>Decade2 (1982–1991)</td><td>Decade3 (1992–2001)</td><td>Decade4 (2002–2011)</td><td>Decade5 (2012–2021)</td><td>Total (1971–2021)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Volume(issue)</td><td>1(1) ~11(1)</td><td>11(2) ~ 20(3)</td><td>21(1) ~30(4)</td><td>31(1) ~ 40(4)</td><td>41(1) ~ 50(4)</td><td><bold>1(1) ~50(4)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Total volumes</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td><bold>50</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Total issues</td><td>31</td><td>30</td><td>38</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td><bold>179</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Total articles</td><td>215</td><td>196</td><td>249</td><td>285</td><td>316</td><td><bold>1261</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: The original study ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]) followed a separation of each decade as D1 (1971–1980), D2 (1981–1990), D3 (1991–2000), D4 (2001–2011), with D4 containing the remaining 11 years. Since there was in fact only one issue in 1971 and with two of the three issues in 1972 originally counted as part of the first volume (as until Volume 11 (4 issues) each volume was organised according to Western academic calendar years, i.e., October—June), we considered it more appropriate to re-divide the decades with the original D1 carrying 11 years and each of the subsequent decades carrying an equal ten years thus meaning all five decades in this research now contain ten volumes each.</p> <p>Sixth, we conducted a numerical and statistical analysis using Excel and SPSS-23.0 for all the coding data to calculate frequencies and percentages distributed in different decades and in total, and then explained and interpreted the research findings in this article.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-4">Data and findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156936835-5">Disciplinary approaches</hd> <p>We wished to discover to what extent different disciplines and their sub-disciplinary approaches have been represented in <emph>JME</emph> in the past five decades, as well as any major changes in the last ten years. The theoretical background of moral education was divided into five main disciplinary approaches and 61 sub-disciplinary approaches (see, Appendix A). The findings from analysing 1261 articles (multiple coding, total frequency of responses = 2924) over the past five decades (1971–2021), for both the percentages of responses and cases, showed that the educational approach was the most represented of the main disciplinary approaches, followed by psychological, philosophical, sociological, and cross-disciplinary approaches (see, Appendix B). The rank order of these five main disciplinary approaches for the first to the fourth decades were the same as for the rank order as a whole over 50 years, with slight variations in percentages. Interestingly, however, the fifth decade (D5) showed a significant change in rank order compared to the previous four decades, in that psychological approaches predominated, followed by philosophical, educational, cross-disciplinary, and sociological approaches.</p> <p>When focusing on the trends of main-disciplinary approaches by decade, particularly in percentage of responses (see also, Figure 1), we can immediately notice that education was the main disciplinary approach that appeared most frequently in the first four decades (D1-D4), but that it declined sharply in the last decade (D5). Moreover, there were similar trends for psychological approaches and philosophical approaches, ranking second and third respectively, with slight variations over the first 40 years. In contrast, the occurrence of these two approaches increased over the last ten years, ranking first and second. Sociological approaches and cross-disciplinary approaches were found to occur less frequently in the journal overall, and were also least likely in the last decade. In addition, in D5 the multiple coding of published papers was the lowest across all decades, thus also showing a predominance of single disciplinary approaches in this last decade (see also, Appendix B).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Trends of main disciplinary approaches by decade and by percentage of responses over 50 years.</p> <p>We further explored sub-disciplinary approaches represented in <emph>JME</emph>. The overall findings have been classified first by frequency of occurrence over the five decades combined (see, Table 2). Among the top 15 (where the percent of cases is at least around 5%) of the 61 sub-disciplinary approaches in the 1261 articles, cognitive-developmental theory was the most frequently represented and ranked highest in percent of cases (f = 333, 26.41%), followed by teaching and learning strategies of moral education (f = 259, 20.54%), philosophy of education (f = 131, 10.39%), curriculum content of moral education/curriculum program (f = 125, 9.91%), educational administration and policy on moral education (f = 120, 9.52%), social-cognitive theory (f = 111, 8.80%), cross-cultural studies (f = 108, 8.56%), analytic philosophy, conceptual analysis and meta-ethics (f = 101, 8.01%), Aristotle and virtue ethics (f = 87, 6.90%), history of moral education (f = 85, 6.74%), other theories of moral psychology (f = 79, 6.26%), moral education for parents, adults and community leaders (f = 71, 5.63%), feminist ethics (f = 63, 5.00%), structural functionalism (f = 63, 5.00%), and professional ethics (f = 57, 4.52%). When comparing occurrences of these 15 items by decade, we can also find changes and contrasts between the sub-disciplinary approaches in each decade. <emph>Cognitive-developmental theory</emph> and <emph>teaching and learning strategies of moral education</emph> were the top two most stable sub-disciplinary approaches over the five decades. <emph>Philosophy of education</emph> as well as <emph>educational administration and policy on moral education</emph> apparently decreased in the last decade, while the three items, <emph>social-cognitive theory, Aristotle and virtue ethics</emph>, and <emph>professional ethics</emph> visibly increased in the last decade. Other items did not show any noticeable trends.</p> <p>Table 2. Overall ranking and frequencies of occurrence of the top 15 sub-disciplinary approaches in total and for trends by decade</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Total ranking</td><td>(coding no.) sub-disciplinary approach</td><td>Total (N = 1261)</td><td>D1</td><td>D2</td><td>D3</td><td>D4</td><td>D5</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple coding</td><td>1971–1982</td><td>1982–1992</td><td>1991–2002</td><td>2002–2012</td><td>2012–2022</td></tr><tr><td>frequency</td><td>percent of cases</td><td>frequency by decade</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>20. Cognitive-developmental theory</td><td><bold>333</bold></td><td><bold>26.41%</bold></td><td>68</td><td>63</td><td>65</td><td>72</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>46. Teaching and learning strategies of moral education</td><td><bold>259</bold></td><td><bold>20.54%</bold></td><td>60</td><td>54</td><td>49</td><td>56</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>42. Philosophy of education</td><td><bold>131</bold></td><td><bold>10.39%</bold></td><td>25</td><td>26</td><td>27</td><td>35</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>44. Curriculum content of moral education/curriculum program</td><td><bold>125</bold></td><td><bold>9.91%</bold></td><td>35</td><td>22</td><td>23</td><td>27</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>43. Educational administration and policy on moral education</td><td><bold>120</bold></td><td><bold>9.52%</bold></td><td>20</td><td>22</td><td>27</td><td>44</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>22. Social-cognitive theory</td><td><bold>111</bold></td><td><bold>8.80%</bold></td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>18</td><td>32</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>38. Cross-cultural studies</td><td><bold>108</bold></td><td><bold>8.56%</bold></td><td>22</td><td>17</td><td>27</td><td>28</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>7. Analytic philosophy, conceptual analysis and meta-ethics</td><td><bold>101</bold></td><td><bold>8.01%</bold></td><td>25</td><td>33</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>2. Aristotle and virtue ethics</td><td><bold>87</bold></td><td><bold>6.90%</bold></td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>17</td><td>21</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>41. History of moral education</td><td><bold>85</bold></td><td><bold>6.74%</bold></td><td>12</td><td>19</td><td>13</td><td>37</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>28. Other theories of moral psychology</td><td><bold>79</bold></td><td><bold>6.26%</bold></td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>20</td><td>23</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>48. Moral education for parents, adults and community leaders</td><td><bold>71</bold></td><td><bold>5.63%</bold></td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>31</td><td>14</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>8. Feminist ethics</td><td><bold>63</bold></td><td><bold>5.00%</bold></td><td>0</td><td>15</td><td>12</td><td>24</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>29. Structural functionalism</td><td><bold>63</bold></td><td><bold>5.00%</bold></td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>19</td><td>11</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>12. Professional ethics</td><td><bold>57</bold></td><td><bold>4.52%</bold></td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>19</td><td>21</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We then compared the top 15 sub-disciplinary approaches occurring in each decade to the total and found some interesting observations. Several items appeared in the top 15th percentile in both each decade and the total rankings. These were: cognitive-developmental theory, teaching and learning strategies of moral education, curriculum content of moral education/curriculum program, philosophy of education, cross-cultural studies, and social-cognitive theory. However, some other sub-disciplinary approaches often appeared in the top 15 of certain decades but did not appear in the top 15 of the five decades in total. These findings revealed the increased disciplinary specialization and diversity of approach in <emph>JME</emph> over 50 years. For instance, articles dealing with philosophy of religion and spirituality, continental European philosophies, and evolutionary psychology, appeared frequently in the first and second decades. Issues of social justice, and theory of democracy/liberalism were common to the third decade. In the fourth decade papers often covered Eastern philosophies, other theories of moral psychology (defined as those that do not feature main moral psychology theories listed as the sub-disciplinary approaches), and issues of social justice. Significantly, in the last decade published papers ranged over more diversified sub-disciplinary approaches than other decades. Social-domain theory, critique of virtue ethics, social psychology, moral education for teachers, Eastern philosophies, and environmental ethics were ranked in the top 15 in this last decade, however none of them appeared in the total top 15 and most of them were ranking for the first time.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-6">Keywords</hd> <p>In roughly the first to fourth decades of <emph>JME</emph> (1971 to 2012) keywords for papers were not consistently cited. So, Lee and Taylor ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]) coded up to five key concepts (on average three) describing each article, based on title and abstract. From 2013 (Volume 42), author-submitted keywords have been systematically included with each <emph>JME</emph> article, as submission required. To simplify and facilitate the overall coding process, we decided to group the key concepts and keywords together, and then renamed them all as <emph>keywords</emph> in this paper.</p> <p>A total of 1048 unique keywords (of which, 699 keywords appear only once) are relevant to <emph>JME</emph> in the past 50 years, with 151 keywords in the first decade, 134 keywords in the second decade, 166 keywords in the third decade, 188 keywords in the fourth decade, and a significant increase of 880 keywords in the fifth decade. Analysis of 1261 articles from the past 50 years showed that of the top 30 keywords (the frequency is at least around 28 times) most represented in the journal, moral education (f = 253), moral reasoning (f = 122), moral judgment (f = 108), and moral development (f = 101) were continuously ranked in the top four. These were followed by justice/fairness, teaching and learning, virtues (specific listing), moral dilemmas/moral dilemma discussion, adolescent development and values, religion(s), care/caring, reasoning, religious education/development, citizenship education, moral reasoning stages, moral value(s), character education/development, socialization, values education, autonomy, decision-making, sex education, behaviour, Christianity, moral motivation(s), human rights, responsibility, attitudes, emotion, and narrative. Interestingly, keyword trends in the fifth decade (when authors chose keywords) showed a significant divergence: except for moral education, which continued to rank first, each of the other most frequent 30 keywords showed a downward trend (see, Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3. Rank and frequencies of occurrence of the total top 30 keywords and trends by decade</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Total ranking</td><td>(coding no.) keywords</td><td>Total (N = 1261)</td><td>D1</td><td>D2</td><td>D3</td><td>D4</td><td>D5</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple coding</td><td>1971–1981</td><td>1982–1991</td><td>1992–2001</td><td>2002–2011</td><td>2012 –2021</td></tr><tr><td>frequency</td><td>trends of frequency by decade</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>583</td><td>moral education</td><td><bold>253</bold></td><td>53</td><td>51</td><td>39</td><td>56</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>141</td><td>moral reasoning</td><td><bold>122</bold></td><td>34</td><td>25</td><td>24</td><td>27</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>138</td><td>moral judgment</td><td><bold>108</bold></td><td>42</td><td>23</td><td>13</td><td>24</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>578</td><td>moral development</td><td><bold>101</bold></td><td>33</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>10</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>114</td><td>justice/fairness</td><td><bold>73</bold></td><td>15</td><td>18</td><td>23</td><td>15</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>218</td><td>teaching and learning</td><td><bold>68</bold></td><td>12</td><td>9</td><td>25</td><td>22</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>226</td><td>virtues (specific listing)</td><td><bold>63</bold></td><td>9</td><td>13</td><td>21</td><td>20</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>130</td><td>moral dilemmas (moral dilemma discussion)</td><td><bold>52</bold></td><td>13</td><td>6</td><td>17</td><td>15</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>adolescent development and values</td><td><bold>48</bold></td><td>13</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>177</td><td>religion(s)</td><td><bold>48</bold></td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>25</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>18</td><td>care/caring</td><td><bold>46</bold></td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>16</td><td>15</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>174</td><td>reasoning</td><td><bold>45</bold></td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>178</td><td>religious education/development</td><td><bold>43</bold></td><td>15</td><td>21</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>28</td><td>citizenship education</td><td><bold>42</bold></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>13</td><td>25</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>142</td><td>moral reasoning stages</td><td><bold>42</bold></td><td>18</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>146</td><td>moral value(s)</td><td><bold>42</bold></td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>11</td><td>13</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>21</td><td>character education/development</td><td><bold>41</bold></td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>15</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>202</td><td>socialization</td><td><bold>38</bold></td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>18</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>224</td><td>values education</td><td><bold>37</bold></td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>16</td><td>10</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>autonomy</td><td><bold>35</bold></td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>49</td><td>decision-making</td><td><bold>35</bold></td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>192</td><td>sex education</td><td><bold>35</bold></td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>13</td><td>behaviour</td><td><bold>34</bold></td><td>12</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>27</td><td>Christianity</td><td><bold>32</bold></td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>140</td><td>moral motivation(s)</td><td><bold>32</bold></td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>98</td><td>human rights</td><td><bold>31</bold></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>15</td><td>10</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>180</td><td>responsibility</td><td><bold>31</bold></td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>10</td><td>attitudes</td><td><bold>29</bold></td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>65</td><td>emotion</td><td><bold>28</bold></td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>148</td><td>narrative</td><td><bold>28</bold></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>14</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We ranked the keywords for each decade and found that seven keywords—moral education, moral reasoning, moral judgment, justice/fairness, moral value(s), sex education, moral development—were repeatedly ranked among the top 30 across five decades. However, several keywords, while appearing in the top 30 in certain decades, did not qualify in the overall top 30 for all five decades combined. These were: indoctrination, relationships, teacher education, authority, democracy, discussion in the first decade; pluralism, indoctrination, perspective-taking, authority, cognitive development, curriculum and instruction, discussion in the second decade; curriculum and instruction, cognitive development, relationship, political socialization, discussion in the third decade; political socialization, moral agency, empathy, teacher-student relationships, virtue ethics, curriculum and instruction, parenting/upbringing, and democracy in the fourth decade. In the fifth decade we found 12 emerging keywords that rose to the top 30, which are most closely connected with virtue ethics and education, i.e., virtue(s), Aristotle/Aristotelian virtues, moral identity/moral self, virtue ethics, pedagogy, teacher education, moral agency, parenting/upbringing, perspective-taking, authority, and indoctrination.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-7">Research methodologies and empirical research methods</hd> <p>To explore to what extent different research methodologies and empirical research methods have been represented in <emph>JME</emph>, along with trends in the past five decades, we coded 1261 papers (multiple coding, total frequency of responses = 1714). The findings for both the percentages of responses and cases showed that research methodologies reported in <emph>JME</emph> papers ranked in total as follows (see, Appendix C): literature review (f = 531), theoretical inquiry (f = 332), quantitative research (f = 271), critique, commentary and response to commentary (f = 161), qualitative research (f = 137), mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative methods) (f = 99), historical research (f = 97), documentary analysis (f = 84), and others (f = 2). Comparing the trends of research methodologies across five decades, focusing on percent of responses, we found that literature review, for example, featured strongly in the first three decades, but decreased in the fourth decade (while still ranking first) and then clearly dropped to the fourth place in the last decade. In parallel, the percentage of papers which focused on theoretical inquiry usually ranked in second place with slight variations in ranking across the five decades. The frequencies and percentages of quantitative research and qualitative research reported in papers have shown a rise over 50 years, with a significant increase in this last decade, ranking second and third, respectively. Other research methods have not shown obvious trends over this period.</p> <p>Further analysis based on coding whether or not papers used empirical research methods, showed that 46.47% (n = 586) of articles published in <emph>JME</emph> over five decades were based on empirical research and that the percentage of empirical papers published has increased overall over the five decades from 37.67% (f = 81) (1971–1981), to 42.35% (f = 83) (1982–1991), to 38.96% (f = 97) (1992–2001), to 51.58% (f = 147) (2002–2011), and to 56.33% (f = 178) (2012–2021). Therefore, papers based on empirical research formed just over half of those published in the fourth and fifth decades. In terms of specific methods of empirical research, the following were most frequent (see, Table 4): questionnaire survey/internet survey, face-to-face interviews/telephone interviews, quasi-experimental, structured/semi-structured interviews, participant observation, descriptive research (e.g., case, case series), qualitative content analysis/thematic analysis, group interview/panel interviews/focus groups, test/measurement development, cross-sectional study, controlled experimentation, quantitative content analysis, discourse analysis, longitudinal/repeated-measures, narrative (e.g., oral history, life story), naturalistic observation, grounded theory, phenomenological research, meta-analysis, and ethnographic approach. We also found that questionnaire survey/internet survey, face-to-face interviews/telephone interviews, quasi-experimental, and structured/semi-structured interviews were in the top four, with the highest frequencies and percentages of empirical research methods. These methods, in particular, significantly increased in the last decade. In addition, the empirical research methods reported in articles over 50 years have become more numerous and more diverse.</p> <p>Table 4. Rank and frequencies of occurrence of the empirical research methods in total and by decade</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Ranking</td><td>empirical research methods</td><td>Total (multiple coding)</td><td>D1 1971–1981</td><td>D2 1982–1991</td><td>D3 1992–2001</td><td>D4 2002–2011</td><td>D5 2012–2021</td></tr><tr><td>(empirical research N = 586)</td><td>frequency</td><td>percent of responses</td><td>percent of cases</td><td>trends of frequency by decade</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Questionnaire survey/internet survey</td><td><bold>203</bold></td><td><bold>23.12%</bold></td><td><bold>34.64%</bold></td><td>32</td><td>12</td><td>32</td><td>46</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Face-to-face interviews</td><td><bold>80</bold></td><td><bold>9.11%</bold></td><td><bold>13.65%</bold></td><td>21</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>13</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>/telephone interviews</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Quasi-experimental</td><td><bold>69</bold></td><td><bold>7.86%</bold></td><td><bold>11.77%</bold></td><td>25</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Structured/semi-structured interviews</td><td><bold>69</bold></td><td><bold>7.86%</bold></td><td><bold>11.77%</bold></td><td>14</td><td>9</td><td>19</td><td>12</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Participant observation</td><td><bold>46</bold></td><td><bold>5.24%</bold></td><td><bold>7.85%</bold></td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>24</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Qualitative Content Analysis</td><td><bold>43</bold></td><td><bold>4.90%</bold></td><td><bold>7.34%</bold></td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>/Thematic analysis</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Group interview/panel interviews</td><td><bold>43</bold></td><td><bold>4.90%</bold></td><td><bold>7.34%</bold></td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>15</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>/focus group</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Test/measurement development</td><td><bold>40</bold></td><td><bold>4.56%</bold></td><td><bold>6.83%</bold></td><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Cross-sectional study</td><td><bold>37</bold></td><td><bold>4.21%</bold></td><td><bold>6.31%</bold></td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>17</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Controlled experimentation</td><td><bold>35</bold></td><td><bold>3.99%</bold></td><td><bold>5.97%</bold></td><td>3</td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Quantitative Content Analysis</td><td><bold>32</bold></td><td><bold>3.64%</bold></td><td><bold>5.46%</bold></td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Discourse analysis</td><td><bold>31</bold></td><td><bold>3.53%</bold></td><td><bold>5.29%</bold></td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Longitudinal/repeated-measures</td><td><bold>26</bold></td><td><bold>2.96%</bold></td><td><bold>4.44%</bold></td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Narrative (e.g., oral history, life story)</td><td><bold>24</bold></td><td><bold>2.73%</bold></td><td><bold>4.10%</bold></td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Naturalistic observation</td><td><bold>19</bold></td><td><bold>2.16%</bold></td><td><bold>3.24%</bold></td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Grounded Theory</td><td><bold>11</bold></td><td><bold>1.25%</bold></td><td><bold>1.88%</bold></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Phenomenological research</td><td><bold>10</bold></td><td><bold>1.14%</bold></td><td><bold>1.71%</bold></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Meta-analysis</td><td><bold>9</bold></td><td><bold>1.03%</bold></td><td><bold>1.54%</bold></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Ethnographic approach</td><td><bold>8</bold></td><td><bold>0.91%</bold></td><td><bold>1.37%</bold></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Total</td><td><bold>878</bold></td><td><bold>100.00%</bold></td><td><bold>149.83%</bold></td><td>132</td><td>129</td><td>148</td><td>212</td><td>257</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Note: Percent of responses is the percentage of each response out of total responses from the given data-set; these percentages will add up to 100%. Percent of cases indicates the percentage of cases mentioned for each item; these percentages will add up to more than 100% in this multiple coding study.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-8">Authors and their background</hd> <p>These findings mainly focus on available background information about authors published in <emph>JME</emph>, trends during the past five decades and any changes in the last ten years. Analysis showed, for example, that two-thirds of papers were single-authored (f = 834, 66.14%), and a further fifth had two authors (f = 258, 20.46%), with some others having three authors (f = 87, 6.9%), four authors (f = 52, 4.12%), five authors (f = 19, 1.51%), six authors (f = 4, 0.32%), seven authors (f = 3, 0.24%), eight authors (f = 1, 0.08%), and even ten authors (f = 3, 0.24%). Thus, the vast majority of <emph>JME</emph> articles had one or two authors, as shown in a similar trend over the first four decades of publication. However, there have been other changes in the last ten years. The percentage of single authors has declined markedly (to 45%), and the percentages of two, three, and four authors have increased. Three articles published in the last decade had ten authors (Callina et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]; Glover et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]). This is most likely to be related to the increasing number of empirical studies reported as fewer theoretical or philosophical papers are likely to be multi-authored.</p> <p>In addition, we analysed the biological gender of first authors of <emph>JME</emph> papers over its 50 years of publication, as indicated by name. Some 63.62% (f = 802) of first authors were male and 31.40% (f = 396) were female; however, for varying reasons, 5% (<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref15">63</reflink>) were unidentifiable by gender. Over the first 40 years of publication the percentage of male first authors has declined, and over the last decade, the overall percentage of male and female first authors has become almost equal (see, Figure 2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Gender of the first author by decade.</p> <p>Furthermore, analysis revealed that the first authors' affiliated institutions were situated in a total of 52 different countries. Data indicated a more global trend across five decades from 23 countries (1971–1981), to 22 (1982–1991), to 25 (1992–2001), to 39 (2002–2011), and to 37 (2012–2021). Unsurprisingly for an English-language journal, over 50 years a total of 840 papers (66.6%) came from just three predominantly English-speaking countries—the USA (f = 423, 35.54%), the UK (f = 310, 24.58%) and Canada (f = 107, 8.49%). The top 15 countries where the first authors' affiliated institutions were located were: the USA (f = 423), the UK (f = 310), Canada (f = 107), Australia (f = 49), the Netherlands (f = 47), Israel (f = 37), China (f = 30), Germany (f = 24), Finland (f = 16), Spain (f = 16), South Africa (f = 15), Sweden (f = 14), Nigeria (f = 11), Taiwan (f = 11), Italy (f = 10), New Zealand (f = 10), and Norway (f = 10). When focusing on the trends and changes over the decades, we found that there was a similar ranking across the five decades. However, there were several countries which were ranked in the top 15 in certain decades but not included in the total top 15 for all decades combined (i.e., Austria, Belgium, Chile, Ethiopia, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Poland, and South Korea.)</p> <p>In addition, when we categorized the countries in which first authors' institutions were located into geographical regions, the rankings of the past 50 years were as follows: North America (f = 530, 42.03%), Europe (f = 495, 39.25%), Asia-Pacific (f = 130, 10.31%), Middle East and South Asia (f = 44, 3.49%), Africa (f = 32, 2.54%), and South America, Central America and the Caribbean (f = 25, 1.98%). In the last ten years the institutional affiliations of first authors are most likely to have been based in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific regions. The institutional affiliation of first authors in North America has markedly increased since the third decade (1992–2001). By comparison, the likelihood of first author affiliation in Europe slightly decreased during the second to fourth decades but increased in the last decade (2012–2021). First authors based in institutions in the Asia-Pacific region have distinctly increased in the past two decades (2002–2021), indicating their increasing academic capability to publish internationally in English and to broaden the field. Authors' institutional affiliation to other regions did not show any noticeable trends.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-9">Editorial team, boards, trustees</hd> <p>The JME Trust, established in 1997–8, is a UK-based charitable company limited by guarantee. According to its constitution, its trustees are UK residents and are currently six in number. The Trust owns the <emph>JME</emph> and receives royalties for its publication, which it manages and uses to administer the journal, support scholarships to attend AME and APNME conferences and to fund research through the British Academy and some of its own conferences and seminars. The <emph>JME</emph> is administered by an Editor and an international team of three Assistant Editors, appointed by the Trust, chaired by a trustee, and supported by an international Editorial Board. This nucleus of <emph>JME</emph> editorial team members is responsible for day-to-day editorial policy, content and monitoring publishing arrangements.</p> <p>We wanted to explore the background information, and trends over the five decades, as well as major changes in the last ten years for this wider team of all those involved in management, day-to-day running and academic advisory roles with respect to <emph>JME</emph>. First, regardless of whether or not they are the same person, or the length of their tenure, we found that the role titles of all involved have gradually diversified, and over 50 years, the total number has increased from 60 (D1) to 86 (D5). The last ten years has seen the greatest number of those involved with the management and running of the journal as a whole and the most diversity in role titles. Second, analysis of the gender of all <emph>JME</emph> team members over 50 years showed that the majority have been male: 71.07% (f = 253) whereas just 29.21% (f = 104) were female. However, the percentage of female team members has significantly increased over the past five decades from 16.67% (1971–1981), to 21.21% (1982–1991), to 27.40% (1992–2001), to 33.80% (2002–2011), and notably to 41.86% (2012–2021), thereby reflecting the increasing number of female scholars in this field (see, Figure 3).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Gender of team members by decade.</p> <p>We found that during 50 years these overall team members' affiliated institutions were situated in 23 different countries, with a generally more global trend across five decades; from 5 countries (1971–1981), to 9 (1982–1991), to 15 (1992–2001), to 19 (2002–2011), and to 17 (2012–2021). Over 50 years the locations of team members' institutions were most likely to be the UK (f = 176, 49.44%), the USA (f = 92, 25.84%) and Canada (f = 20, 5.62%), reflecting the JME's roots, constitution, authorship and outreach. The other 20 countries represented were: The Netherlands (f = 10), Japan (f = 6), Germany (f = 6), Australia (f = 5), Poland (f = 5), Switzerland (f = 4), Taiwan (f = 4), Israel (f = 3), Spain (f = 3), Brazil (f = 3), Iceland (f = 3), Russia (USSR) (f = 2), China (f = 2), Costa Rica (f = 2), Peru (f = 2), Belgium (f = 2), South Africa (f = 2), Chile (f = 2), Austria (f = 1), and Finland (f = 1). In addition, when we categorized the countries of the team members' affiliated institutions into geographical regions, the rankings of the past 50 years were as follows: Europe (f = 214, 60.11%), North America (f = 111, 31.18%), Asia-Pacific (f = 17, 4.78%), South America, Central America and the Caribbean (f = 9, 2.53%), Middle East and South Asia (f = 3, 2.53%), and Africa (f = 2, 0.56%). The three regions appearing most frequently in the past five decades are also Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-10">Summary and discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156936835-11">Disciplinary approaches and keywords in JME: issues in moral education development</hd> <p>Disciplinary approaches and keywords represented in journals show content focus and developmental trends. We found that the ranking orders of the main disciplinary approaches represented in 50 years of <emph>JME</emph> articles are: educational, psychological, philosophical, sociological, and cross-disciplinary. This was consistent for the first 40 years. When focusing on sub-disciplinary approaches represented in <emph>JME</emph>, cognitive-developmental theory, teaching and learning strategies of moral education, curriculum content of moral education/curriculum programs, philosophy of education, cross-cultural studies, and social-cognitive theory were all listed in the top 15 over the 50 years and in each decade. In addition, we found that the keywords moral education, moral reasoning, moral judgment, and moral development recurrently ranked as the top four in <emph>JME</emph> over the 50 years. Seven keywords—moral education, moral reasoning, moral judgment, justice/fairness, moral value(s), sex education, and moral development—were repeatedly listed in the top 30 in each decade. Therefore, these findings indicated that <emph>JME</emph> articles over 50 years have a long tradition of predominantly emphasizing the main disciplinary approach of education and sub-disciplinary approach of cognitive-developmental theory.</p> <p>However, in the past ten years, the content of <emph>JME</emph> articles has shown some notable changes. The main disciplinary approaches were dominated by the psychological and philosophical, with educational falling to third position. In addition, more diversified sub-disciplinary approaches appeared than in the previous four decades. Social-domain theory, critique of virtue ethics, social psychology, moral education for teachers, Eastern philosophies, and environmental ethics all entered the top 15 sub-disciplinary approaches. Keywords represented in <emph>JME</emph> during the last decade totalled 880 items altogether, 700 of which were coded only once. This was an increase of 693 keywords over the previous decade, possibly because authors submitting papers were required to enter keywords of their own choice. In these ten years we found 12 emerging keywords that rose to the top 30, some of these being closely connected with virtue ethics and education, i.e., virtue(s), Aristotle/Aristotelian virtues, moral identity/moral self, virtue ethics, pedagogy, teacher education, moral agency, parenting/upbringing, perspective-taking, authority, indoctrination. While the increased philosophical approach stresses virtue ethics and character education notably more than previously, the increasingly dominant psychological approach actually remains focused on cognitive-developmental theories. It may be that this reflects the main disciplinary backgrounds of the two editors over this period (psychological and philosophical) and what work they commissioned, especially given the increase in SIs mentioned in the introduction.</p> <p>Although sub-disciplinary approaches and keywords in <emph>JME</emph> have expanded and become more diversified than before, some scholars, publishing their articles in <emph>JME</emph>, have reflected critically on dominant trends in moral education research, as published in <emph>JME</emph>, especially on L. Kohlberg's theory of cognitive-development, which has been in the mainstream of <emph>JME</emph> from the 1970s. Haidt ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]), for example, argued that moral psychology has changed radically in the last 25 years and offered, what he termed, three principles other than cognitive theory and rationalism, for characterizing new trends in the field, however these still do not adequately reflect developments in moral psychology: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>) intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>) there is more to morality than harm and fairness; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>) morality binds and blinds. Krettenauer ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]) also argued that in the social sciences and related fields research on morality grew exponentially over the past 15 to 20 years, but the field of moral education research has not seen a corresponding upsurge; therefore, there is a widening gap between the science of morality and moral education. Krettenauer further indicated that the emerging field of moral sciences (e.g., Haidt, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]) and an evolutionary-developmental synthesis on becoming human (e.g., Tomasello, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]), can provide fresh perspectives on perennial problems of morality which can open up new horizons for moral education research. In addition, Narvaez ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]) suggests that we should pursue some interesting directions in future issues, from philosophy to psychology and applications, all of which are related to moral education, such as moral dispositions, neurobiology of morality, genetics and epigenetics, optimal moral capacity, etc.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-12">Research methodologies in JME: observations on research methodology paradigms</hd> <p>The methodology, which is one element of the research paradigms, articulates the logic and flow of the systematic processes followed in conducting a research project to gain knowledge about a research problem and interpret the meaning of reality (Kivunja & Kuyini, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref25">7</reflink>]; Poni, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). From the analysis, we found that research methodologies, reported in <emph>JME</emph> papers over the past 50 years, were ranked as follows: literature review, theoretical inquiry, quantitative research, critique, commentary and response to commentary, qualitative research, mixed methods, historical research, documentary analysis and others. We also found that in the last ten years literature review as a methodology clearly dropped to fourth place, while the use of quantitative and qualitative research has increased significantly. The percentage of empirical papers published has increased over the five decades from 37.67% (D1) to 56.33% (D5). Within the empirical articles, questionnaire survey/internet survey, face-to-face interviews/telephone interviews, quasi-experimental, and structured/semi-structured interviews were the top four research methods and significantly increased in the last decade. Thus, these findings indicated that the methodologies in empirical research reported in <emph>JME</emph> articles gradually showed greater diversity, and there was also a better balance between empirical and non-empirical research. Over the 50 years of <emph>JME</emph>, research methodologies reported in articles have used the positivist paradigm (i.e., quantitative methods) and the interpretivist paradigm (i.e., qualitative methods) more than the critical paradigm. Whilst, the critical paradigm (e.g., Neo-Marxist methodology, feminist theories, cultural studies, critical race theory, Freirean studies), well suited to studies about social justice and giving voice to the voiceless or those less powerful, as well as focusing on agents' empowerment and removing oppressive structures around research subjects (Kivunja & Kuyini, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]), can be found in research reported in <emph>JME</emph>, it lacks sufficient visibility given that these are clearly moral concerns.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-13">Gender of authors and core teams in JME: initial insights into gender equity</hd> <p>An author's gender is integral to broader conversations about equity in the field of education as well as academia since men have historically taken a more predominant role in the production of scholarly knowledge (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]). Feminism has been committed to highlighting the epistemic inequalities endured by women in academia especially in modern neoliberal societies (Deschner et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]). In this analysis, we investigated gender of first authors and those closely associated with upholding the scholarly standards of <emph>JME</emph> to discern gender equity and knowledge creation in moral education research. Findings showed that although two-thirds of the first authors in <emph>JME</emph> over 50 years were male (63.62%; female 31.40%) over time the percentage of female first authors increased so that, in the last decade, gender parity was achieved among first authors in <emph>JME</emph> (female first authors 50.00%, male first authors 49.37%). Moreover, the gender distribution of editorial team members echoes this trend. Although we found that over 50 years as a whole 71.07% of those involved in the management or editing of <emph>JME</emph> were male and only 29.21% were female, the percentage of female core team members significantly increased over the decades from 16.67% (D1) to 41.86% (D5), indicating that more women have participated in <emph>JME</emph> editing and decision-making in the last ten years.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-14">Provenance of authors and core team members in JME: issues of cultural diversity</hd> <p>The author's provenance is relevant not only with respect to the construction of theory, but also with respect to the improvement of practice (Wolhuter, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref30">18</reflink>]). Accordingly, the social and cultural geography of authors' affiliations and knowledge construction within their contexts are of significance for the acknowledgment of cultural diversity, as justified by the concepts of recognition, equality, freedom from domination, and addressing historical injustice (Song, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>]). Findings from this analysis revealed that the first authors' affiliated institutions were situated in a total of 52 different countries, which gradually increased over five decades from 23 countries (D1) to 37 (D5). However, the dominance of the northern hemispheric (or Western-European & North-American) authors in scholarly publications in English has been a long-standing theme (Wolhuter, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>]). Over 50 years a total of 840 papers (66.6%) published in <emph>JME</emph> came from just three countries—the USA (35.54%), the UK (24.58%), and Canada (8.49%). When we categorized the country affiliation of first authors into geographical regions, the top 3 over the past 50 years were North America (41.95%), Europe (39.33%), and the Asia-Pacific (10.31%), with the Asia-Pacific increasing as a region of provenance in the past two decades (2002–2021). In addition, we found that the affiliated institutions of those involved in the publication of <emph>JME</emph> were situated in a total of 23 different countries, which have also increased across the five decades from 5 countries (D1) to 17 (D5). Over 50 years most of those involved came from the UK (49.44%), the USA (25.84%), and Canada (5.62%), as reflected in geographical regions (Europe, 60.11%, North America 31.18%), and only 4.78%. from the Asia-Pacific. In general these findings reflect the gradual internationalisation of academic life over the period of five decades under review and deliberate attempts to widen the disciplinary, cultural and geographical backgrounds of those involved with the journal, establishing formal liaison with affiliated organisations in the field and holding joint conferences. Nevertheless, the findings still indicate that there is scope to increase the cultural diversity of those involved with the administration of the journal in order for different cultural perspectives to be represented in editing and decision-making, and thereby to send a more inclusive signal and proactively try to attract quality submissions from a greater diversity of cultural backgrounds and by authors using different research paradigms.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-15">Implications for JME and moral education research</hd> <p>From the quantitative analysis and interpretation in this article, we can see how the publication of <emph>JME</emph> has reflected and influenced changes in the trajectory of moral education research and development over the past 50 years, with some significant differences in the last ten years. However, this analysis has also brought to light certain areas for further consideration for <emph>JME</emph> and moral education research.</p> <p>First, in terms of <emph>disciplinary approach</emph> there is scope in the journal to deepen the educational disciplinary approach in moral education research (e.g., more critical evaluation of curriculum content of moral education/curriculum programs, and professional programs of moral education for teachers), and also to broaden the definition and field of 'education' in various contexts, e.g., cultural, gender, family, schooling, community, leisure, work; and varying roles, e.g., parent, teacher, student, civic, professional, as emphasised in the <emph>JME</emph>'s current mission statement, and to connect more disciplinary/interdisciplinary approaches with moral education (e.g., moral philosophy, moral psychology, moral science), as in the current editor's stated goals. In terms of <emph>sub-disciplinary approach</emph>, more attention should be paid to emerging theories to enrich and widen perspectives on moral education research and practice. In parallel, the content of the special issues might be compared with independently submitted papers in future research to explore whether or not there are trends that might diverge.</p> <p>Second, looking at <emph>research paradigms</emph> we suggest that <emph>JME</emph> encourage more articles using critical paradigms (e.g., feminist theories, cultural studies) to provide a more inclusive and specific focus on social justice and caring so as to counterbalance positivist and interpretivist paradigms and to strengthen empirical methodology in moral education research.</p> <p>Third, with respect to <emph>gender equity</emph>, whilst there has been a much-needed increase in the number of female first authors and women involved in the scholarship and management of <emph>JME</emph> during the life of <emph>JME</emph>, and especially in the last ten years, it is most important that the <emph>JME</emph> should facilitate and foster female voices, enable different voices to be heard, and encourage dialogue between them. In addition, connecting the gender issue to this study's other categories, for instance, disciplinary approach, key words and methodology, would be interesting topics for future research.</p> <p>Fourth, findings in this article revealed that the <emph>provenance</emph> of the <emph>JME</emph> first authors and team members has become more international over 50 years. However, as <emph>JME</emph> is an English-language journal with high academic standards, it is not surprising at this point in time that published work from the UK, the USA and Canada should still be dominant. From the perspective of valuing cultural diversity, how to improve appreciation and understanding of theoretical and cultural perspectives other than those dominant in the West in papers submitted for consideration and published papers may be more important for moral education research than increasing the cultural diversity of representation of those involved with <emph>JME</emph>, though both may proceed hand in hand. <emph>JME</emph> can serve as a platform to encourage scholars from diverse cultures and a wider range of countries to participate and critique assumptions, paradigms and practices by writing responses to articles and book/article reviews. It could also be proactive and hold more open meetings for core team members from cultural minority backgrounds to engage in discussion on the present and future policy directions of <emph>JME</emph> and, thereby, to enhance the awareness and understanding of those from the dominant Western cultural backgrounds.</p> <p>Finally, in witnessing the 50<sups>th</sups> anniversary of the publication of <emph>JME</emph>, this historical analysis demonstrates that Minerva's owl has indeed already taken flight in nurturing cognition in the field of moral education, making it more academic, proactively international and culturally diverse. Having opened its wings, we envisage the widening and deepening of sensitivity and appreciation, towards a future where the owl with its wisdom and insight can fly and dance in accord with the harmony and grace of the crane, intertwining perspectives and recognition. We look forward to a future where scholars can come together to fully recognise, critique, construct and bring value to this interdisciplinarity, whilst engaging with a bigger picture of moral education theory, research and practice. This analysis has revealed in-depth findings and trends over the 50 years of <emph>JME</emph>, with some changes over the past decade, amounting to a considerable contribution to the field of moral education. It is a foundational legacy which we hope can be appraised, enriched and extended by our successors in the future pages of <emph>JME</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-16">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>I should like to thank the following for their support in this project:</p> <olist> <item>Three anonymous <emph>JME</emph> referees for their valuable comments and Professor Emeritus Stephen J. Thoma for his suggestions on the draft manuscript.</item> <item> Scholar coders: Professor Yen-Hsin Chen, Professor Yi-Lin Chen, Dr. Mei-Chen Chu, Dr. Li-Min Lee, Professor Yen-Yi Lee, Dr. Yu-Chi Li, Dr. Hsiao-Ling Lin, Dr. Hsin-Chang Tsai and graduate students: Wei-Yao Chuang, Guan-Ling Huang, Yen-Ting Kuo, Ying-Hsiu Lin.</item> <item> Research assistants: Yang-Li Chang, Chia-Chen Lee, Yu Hsiao, Li-Chia Hsu.</item> <item> I should like to acknowledge the support and critique of my colleague, Dr. Monica J. Taylor (Editor of <emph>JME</emph> (1976-2011), <emph>JME</emph> Trustee, Honorary President of the Asia-Pacific Network for Moral Education, and President of the Association for Moral Education (1998-2001)), in the presentation of this paper and for our joint work on the 40th <emph>JME</emph> review, upon which this paper draws.</item> </olist> <hd id="AN0156936835-17">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-18">Appendix A. Category of disciplinary and sub-disciplinary approaches</hd> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-19">Appendix B. Frequencies and percentages of main disciplinary approaches by decade and in tota...</hd> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0156936835-20">Appendix C. Frequencies and percentages of research methodologies by decade and in total</hd> <p>Graph</p> <ref id="AN0156936835-21"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The AME, with which the <emph>JME</emph> had an informal association since the mid-1970s, has been formally affiliated since 1998; and the APNME, with which the <emph>JME</emph> was closely associated from its foundation in 2006, has been formally affiliated since 2018. 'Affiliation' for AME and APNME members includes a discounted subscription to <emph>JME</emph> and, additionally for AME, normally the publication of the annual Kohlberg Memorial Lecture in <emph>JME</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Since there have been two changes of editor during the last decade it might have been informative to consider how editorship may or may not have influenced changes. However, as there is an overlap with a legacy of papers for publication and commissioned SIs at the handover of editorship this is not clear cut. Thus, it seemed more useful to take chronological decades as the basis for analysis and to comment on particular changes. External indices, such as citations, impact factors and leading scholar indices, were not included in this study because the focus was on content analysis and the external indices data are relatively new and hence incomplete for the past 50 years.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0156936835-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Callina, K. S., Burkhard, B., Schaefer, H. S., Powers, J., Murray, E. D., Kobylski, G., Ryan, D. M., Kelly, D., Matthews, M. D., & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Character in context: Character structure among United States military academy cadets. Journal of Moral Education, 48 (4), 439 – 464. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2018.1528442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conroy, J. C. (2021). Chaos or coherence? Future directions for moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 50 (1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1830578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Deschner, C. J., Dorion, L., & Salvatori, L. (2020). Prefiguring a feminist academia: A multi vocal autoethnography on the creation of a feminist space in a neoliberal university. Society and Business Review, 15 (4), 325 – 347. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-06-2019-0084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Glover, R. J., Natesan, P., Wang, J., Rohr, D., McAfee-Etheridge, L., Booker, D. D., Bishop, J., Lee, D., Kildare, C., & Wu, M. (2014). Moral rationality and intuition: An exploration of relationships between the Defining Issues Test and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. Journal of Moral Education, 43 (4), 395 – 412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2014.953043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316 (5827), 998 – 1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref16" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42 (3), 281 – 297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2013.817327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref25" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6 (5), 26 – 41. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Krettenauer, T. (2021). Moral sciences and the role of education. Journal of Moral Education, 50 (1), 77 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1784713</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kristjánsson, K. (2021). Awaiting the Owl of Minerva: Some thoughts on the present and future of moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 50 (2), 115 – 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2021.1907074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C.-M., & Taylor, M. J. (2013). Moral education trends over 40 years: A content analysis of the Journal of Moral Education (1971–2011). Journal of Moral Education, 42 (4), 399 – 429. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2013.832666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Narvaez, D. (2013). The future of research in moral development and education. Journal of Moral Education, 42 (1), 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2012.757102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poni, M. (2014). Research paradigms in education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4 (1), 407 – 413. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n1p407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song, S. (2020, September 9). Multiculturalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/multiculturalism/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomasello, M. (2019). Human ontogeny. Harvard/Belknap.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J., Hilliard, L. J., Hershberg, R. M., Bowers, E. P., Chase, P. A., Champine, R. B., Buckingham, M. H., Braun, D. A., Gelgoot, E. S., & Lerner, R. M. (2015). Character in childhood and early adolescence: Models and measurement. Journal of Moral Education, 44 (2), 165 – 197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1040381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, E. A., Kolek, E. A., Saunders, D. B., Remaly, A., & Wells, R. S. (2018). Mirror on the field: Gender, authorship, and research methods in higher education's leading journals. The Journal of Higher Education, 89 (1), 28 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1330599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolhuter, C. C. (2017). The geography of authorship regarding research on education. Croatian Journal of Education, 19 (3), 981 – 1000. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v19i3.2207</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Angela Chi-Ming Lee</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Angela Chi-Ming Lee is a Distinguished Professor of National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan. She has served as a JME editorial board member for more than 17 years. She is interested in theoretical and empirical research on moral development, moral atmosphere and the development and evaluation of professional curricula of civic and moral education She has published seven books (in Chinese) and more than one hundred papers in Chinese and English.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref31"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1350476
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The 'JME''s 50-Year Contribution to Moral Education: A Content Analysis 1971-2021
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+Angela+Chi-Ming%22">Lee, Angela Chi-Ming</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5678-3863">0000-0002-5678-3863</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Moral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Moral Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 51(2):117-138.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Values%22">Moral Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Development%22">Moral Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Pluralism%22">Cultural Pluralism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Fairness%22">Sex Fairness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trend+Analysis%22">Trend Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+History%22">Educational History</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03057240.2022.2055533
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-7240<br />1465-3877
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the "Journal of Moral Education" ("JME") in 2021, this study explores moral education research trends and changes as reflected in "JME" from 1971 to 2021, with special attention to significant changes in the last decade, a period of rapid digitalization and increasingly complex socio-cultural contexts, both local and global. Moral education trends, as reflected in the 1261 articles published in "JME," were investigated using content analysis of disciplinary approaches, keywords, research methodologies, as well as the national and gender backgrounds of the first authors and "JME" editorial teams and trustees. The main findings point to specific and important issues, central research topics, and neglected areas in moral education and development over the past five decades. The review offers "JME" and the field of moral education some considerations for the development of moral education, observations on research method paradigms, insights on gender equity, and attention to cultural diversity.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1350476
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1350476
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03057240.2022.2055533
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 117
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Pluralism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex Fairness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trend Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational History
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The 'JME''s 50-Year Contribution to Moral Education: A Content Analysis 1971-2021
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee, Angela Chi-Ming
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-7240
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3877
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Moral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1