Surfacing the Qualitative Mindset in Philippine Graduate Education: An Interpretivist and Constructivist Analysis of Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order No. 15, Series of 2019

Surfacing the Qualitative Mindset in Philippine Graduate Education: An Interpretivist and Constructivist Analysis of Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order No. 15, Series of 2019

Brian Bantugan, PhD¹, John Michael Bernardo², Genesis Laqueo²

¹Faculty, St. Paul University Manila

²Graduate Student, St. Paul University Manila

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000658

Received: 12 October 2025; Accepted: 20 October 2025; Published: 25 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examined CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 15, Series of 2019, which establishes policies, standards, and guidelines for graduate education programs in the Philippines. The memorandum is analyzed through a qualitative lens to surface its embedded qualitative thinking, moving beyond measurable outcomes such as research productivity or program completion rates. Guided by interpretivist and constructivist perspectives, the study employs a case study approach, document analysis, and knowledge synthesis to identify provisions that emphasize ethics, social alignment, leadership, critical thinking, interdisciplinarity, and research-based learning. Analytical and synthetic matrices were developed to systematically code policy statements and derive indicators of a qualitative mindset. Findings reveal that CMO 15 positions graduate education as a transformative enterprise: it cultivates ethical, socially responsible leaders; promotes originality, innovation, and interdisciplinarity; and aligns education with national development while maintaining global relevance. The study demonstrates that qualitative thinking, as reflected in the memorandum, prioritizes meaning, societal impact, and innovation over mere compliance with quantitative metrics, offering insights for policy development, graduate education practice, and research innovation.

Keywords: CHED Memorandum Order 15 Series of 2019, Graduate Education Reform, Qualitative Thinking, Interpretivism, Constructivism

INTRODUCTION

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) in the Philippines issues policies and guidelines that shape college and university programs across the country. One of these important directives is CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 15, Series of 2019, which provides the official policies, standards, and guidelines (PSGs) for graduate education programs (CHED, 2019). This memorandum lays down the academic and institutional requirements that higher education institutions must follow in designing and delivering master’s and doctoral degree programs.

For those unfamiliar with the Philippine educational system, CHED is the government agency that supervises tertiary or higher education—meaning universities, colleges, and graduate schools (Orbeta, 2016). By issuing CMOs, CHED ensures that programs offered nationwide meet a certain level of quality, remain relevant to social and economic needs, and are aligned with global standards (Bernardo, 2017). CMO 15, s. 2019 is particularly significant because it standardizes graduate education, strengthens research-oriented training, and emphasizes advanced competencies such as critical inquiry, knowledge creation, and leadership (Salazar, 2020).

In essence, this memorandum sets the foundation for what Filipino graduate students should learn and achieve by the time they complete their programs, regardless of the institution they attend. It is part of the broader reform efforts in Philippine education following the shift to the K to 12 system, which reshaped both undergraduate and graduate programs to better prepare graduates for local and global opportunities (Tan, 2018).

How is the memorandum order an attempt to improve the state of higher education in the philippines?

CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, Series of 2019 is an important step toward raising the quality and global relevance of graduate education in the Philippines. It is an attempt to improve higher education in several ways (CHED, 2019).

Standardization of Quality.  The memorandum sets clear Policies, Standards, and Guidelines (PSGs) for graduate programs, ensuring that universities across the country follow a consistent level of academic rigor. This reduces gaps between institutions and helps guarantee that all graduate students receive education that meets national and international benchmarks (Orbeta, 2016).

Strengthening Research and Innovation.  By emphasizing research productivity and ethical academic practice, the memorandum positions graduate schools as engines of innovation. It encourages faculty and students to contribute new knowledge, address national challenges, and participate in global academic conversations (Salazar, 2020).

Global Competitiveness.  The order integrates outcomes-based education (OBE) and skills aligned with international standards. This helps Filipino graduates compete for opportunities abroad, collaborate with international institutions, and contribute to global knowledge economies (Bernardo, 2017).

Relevance to National Development.  CMO 15 aligns graduate education with the needs of Philippine society—such as leadership, policy development, technological advancement, and professional expertise. This ensures that graduate programs do not only serve academic goals but also address the country’s economic and social priorities (Tan, 2018).

Professionalization of Graduate Education.  The memorandum provides clearer expectations for universities in terms of faculty qualifications, program design, and assessment methods. This strengthens the professional identity of graduate schools, moving them away from being mere extensions of undergraduate programs toward becoming centers of advanced learning and thought leadership (CHED, 2019).

The state of higher education in the Philippines prior to the release of CMO 15

Before the release of CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 15, Series of 2019, graduate education in the Philippines faced several challenges. Graduate education policies were fragmented, as universities and colleges largely set their own requirements, which led to inconsistencies in program quality, curriculum design, and graduation standards (Orbeta, 2016). Research was encouraged but lacked a strong national framework, resulting in highly variable research output and weak emphasis on ethical scholarship across institutions (Salazar, 2020). Many graduate programs were also not fully aligned with international standards, making it difficult for Filipino graduates to gain recognition or compete globally (Bernardo, 2017). In some cases, master’s and doctoral programs were treated merely as “advanced undergraduate classes” rather than distinct, research-driven programs with their own professional and academic identity (Tan, 2018). Furthermore, not all institutions had adequately qualified faculty members—such as doctorate holders or active researchers—contributing to uneven program delivery and limited institutional capacity (Bernardo, 2017).

After the implementation of CMO 15, s. 2019, graduate education in the Philippines adopted a more standardized and research-oriented framework. Graduate programs now follow uniform Policies, Standards, and Guidelines (PSGs), which ensure consistency in curriculum, program outcomes, and assessment nationwide (CHED, 2019). The memorandum mandates a stronger research orientation, requiring graduate students to produce original work that contributes to national development and global knowledge production (Salazar, 2020). Programs are also designed to achieve both global alignment and national relevance, ensuring that graduates are competitive abroad while making meaningful contributions to local priorities (Bernardo, 2017). Moreover, master’s and doctoral programs now carry a clearer identity through advanced disciplinary training, interdisciplinary approaches, and leadership preparation, distinguishing them more sharply from undergraduate education (Tan, 2018). Finally, institutions are required to strengthen their faculty qualifications and research capacity, professionalizing graduate education and positioning it as a key driver of innovation and leadership development in the Philippines (CHED, 2019).

How is the change intended by CMO 15 more a reflection of quantitative and qualitative thinking?

The change intended by CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 15, Series of 2019 reflects both quantitative and qualitative thinking in the reform of Philippine graduate education. On the one hand, the memorandum embodies quantitative thinking through the introduction of measurable standards and outcomes for graduate programs. The Policies, Standards, and Guidelines (PSGs) specify minimum requirements such as faculty qualifications, curriculum hours, and program structures, ensuring consistency across institutions (CHED, 2019). Research productivity is framed in quantifiable terms, with graduate students and faculty expected to contribute to publications, citations, or recognized academic outputs (Salazar, 2020). In addition, accreditation and benchmarking processes allow institutions to compare performance through clear indicators, while graduate outcomes—including completion rates, employability, and leadership roles—serve as metrics for evaluating program success (Orbeta, 2016). This quantitative orientation strengthens accountability and supports evidence-based decision-making in higher education policy (Bernardo, 2017).

At the same time, the memorandum incorporates qualitative thinking, recognizing that graduate education must also emphasize depth, meaning, and human development. It highlights the importance of research ethics and integrity, promoting a values-based approach to scholarship (CHED, 2019). The order also stresses the development of critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, and leadership skills, which are essential but not easily measurable by traditional metrics (Salazar, 2020). By aligning graduate education with national development priorities, CMO 15 underscores the broader social and cultural role of higher education beyond statistics (Tan, 2018). Furthermore, the encouragement of interdisciplinary and innovative approaches reflects a commitment to originality, intellectual diversity, and transformative learning (Bernardo, 2017).

Thus, CMO 15 represents a balanced reform where quantitative thinking ensures accountability and comparability, while qualitative thinking secures relevance, ethical grounding, and holistic development. Together, these approaches reflect CHED’s vision of making Philippine graduate education globally competitive yet socially responsive.

How is qualitative thinking a move towards betterment than quantitative thinking?

Qualitative thinking is a move toward betterment in higher education because it goes beyond the limitations of purely quantitative measures. While quantitative thinking tracks measurable aspects such as graduation rates, publication counts, or curriculum hours, qualitative thinking asks deeper and more meaningful questions: Are the graduates ethical leaders? Does the research create real impact? Is the knowledge transformative? (Salazar, 2020). In this way, qualitative approaches ensure that education is not only efficient but also significant in its contribution to society.

Furthermore, qualitative thinking captures the human and social dimensions of education, recognizing that higher learning is not just about producing outputs but also about shaping values, perspectives, and character. It prioritizes attributes like critical thinking, creativity, empathy, and social responsibility, which cannot be reduced to statistics yet are crucial for sustainable development (Bernardo, 2017).

Qualitative approaches also encourage innovation and originality. Whereas quantitative measures often push institutions to “meet the numbers” — such as requiring a set number of publications per year — this can sometimes undermine quality or relevance. By contrast, qualitative thinking fosters interdisciplinary approaches, ethical practices, and novel ideas that lead to genuine innovation rather than mere compliance (Orbeta, 2016).

In addition, qualitative thinking focuses on impact rather than output. A quantitative perspective may count how many research papers are produced, but a qualitative perspective asks whether those papers actually influence policy, address community challenges, or improve people’s lives (CHED, 2019). This ensures that higher education remains aligned with societal needs rather than being limited to institutional performance indicators.

Finally, qualitative thinking sustains long-term growth in ways quantitative measures cannot. Numbers may capture short-term progress, but they often fail to reflect long-term transformation. By supporting lifelong learning, leadership development, and nation-building, qualitative approaches ensure that higher education contributes to enduring progress across generations (Tan, 2018).

Thus, qualitative thinking represents a move toward betterment because it prioritizes meaning, human development, innovation, impact, and sustainability over the narrow scope of numerical targets.

Why is it important to surface the manifestations of qualitative thinking in CMO 15?

It is important to surface the manifestations of qualitative thinking in CMO 15, s. 2019 because these reflect the deeper values and transformative goals of graduate education beyond compliance with standards. While quantitative indicators measure success through outputs such as publications or completion rates, qualitative aspects emphasize research ethics, intellectual originality, leadership formation, and societal relevance (CHED, 2019). By bringing these dimensions to the forefront, the memorandum positions graduate education as a space not only for knowledge production but also for meaning-making and responsible scholarship.

Highlighting qualitative thinking also enables divergent thinking, which is critical in fostering innovation. Divergent thinking refers to the ability to generate multiple, creative solutions to a problem rather than relying on standardized, convergent responses (Guilford, 1967/1988). CMO 15 encourages this by promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, critical inquiry, and openness to alternative frameworks, moving beyond rigid metrics toward intellectual flexibility (Salazar, 2020). For instance, requiring research that addresses both national development needs and global trends pushes scholars to think across boundaries and design solutions that are innovative, context-sensitive, and impactful.

In this way, the qualitative focus of CMO 15 nurtures an environment where graduate students are not simply trained to meet numeric benchmarks but are empowered to question assumptions, explore new perspectives, and generate original contributions. This kind of education cultivates scholars and leaders who can adapt to complex challenges and drive sustainable innovation in diverse fields (Bernardo, 2017).

Study Framework

Theoretical Framework. This study is anchored on three interrelated theories that explain how qualitative thinking can be identified, assessed, and fostered within higher education policies such as CMO 15.

Constructivist Learning Theory. Constructivism posits that knowledge is not passively absorbed but actively constructed by learners through experience, reflection, and dialogue (Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978). CMO 15 emphasizes critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving, all of which are hallmarks of a constructivist approach. By recognizing qualitative indicators—such as the presence of research ethics, interdisciplinary engagement, and values-driven inquiry—the study draws from constructivism to argue that graduate education should cultivate transformative learning experiences rather than merely transmit factual knowledge.

Human Capital and Capability Approaches. While traditional human capital theory highlights education’s role in producing measurable skills for the labor market (Schultz, 1961; Becker, 1993), Amartya Sen’s (1999) Capability Approach expands this by emphasizing the qualitative dimensions of human development, such as agency, freedom, and well-being. CMO 15 reflects this shift by aligning graduate education not only with employability and productivity (quantitative outcomes) but also with ethical leadership, social responsibility, and innovation (qualitative outcomes). This framework helps the study surface indicators that move beyond numeric benchmarks toward broader contributions to national and global development.

Divergent Thinking and Innovation Theory. Guilford’s (1967/1988) theory of divergent thinking underscores the importance of generating multiple, original solutions rather than converging on standardized responses. Innovation, in this sense, emerges from qualitative processes such as creativity, interdisciplinarity, and intellectual openness. CMO 15’s emphasis on research originality, critical inquiry, and knowledge application to societal issues reflects this orientation. This study therefore uses divergent thinking theory to examine how graduate education policies encourage innovation through qualitative rather than purely quantitative measures.

Integration of Theories. Taken together, these frameworks explain how qualitative thinking manifests in policy and practice: constructivism highlights the learning processes that foster depth of understanding; the capability approach identifies the broader social and human development goals of graduate education; and divergent thinking theory situates qualitative indicators as essential drivers of innovation. By surfacing these indicators in CMO 15, this study aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how Philippine graduate education can be transformative, future-oriented, and globally relevant.

Conceptual Framework. This study is guided by the premise that CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 15, s. 2019 reflects not only quantitative indicators of graduate education (e.g., research outputs, completion rates, faculty qualifications) but also qualitative orientations embedded in its policy language. These qualitative dimensions can be better understood through interpretivist and constructivist lenses, which highlight meaning-making, context, and transformative learning.

Interpretivist Lens. Interpretivism emphasizes that knowledge is shaped by human experiences, social contexts, and cultural meanings (Schwandt, 1994). CMO 15 articulates interpretivist tendencies in its call for:

• Research ethics and integrity – highlighting values-driven scholarship that goes beyond metrics of productivity.
• Alignment with national development needs – situating graduate education within the lived realities and societal priorities of the Philippines.
• Emphasis on leadership and professional identity – recognizing education’s role in shaping meaning, purpose, and responsibility in professional practice.

From an interpretivist perspective, these provisions in CMO 15 reflect a qualitative mindset because they prioritize significance, context, and social contribution over mere quantifiable outcomes.

Constructivist Lens. Constructivism views learning as an active, contextual process in which learners build knowledge through interaction, reflection, and application (Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978). CMO 15 demonstrates constructivist qualities in its emphasis on:

• Critical and creative thinking – encouraging graduate students to construct knowledge rather than simply consume it.
• Interdisciplinary approaches – fostering integration across fields, which reflects the co-construction of meaning in complex, real-world contexts.
• Research-based learning – positioning graduate students as contributors to knowledge, not just recipients, thus cultivating original and transformative scholarship.

Through the constructivist lens, the qualitative mindset in CMO 15 is expressed in the way it values depth of understanding, originality, and learner agency.

Integration of Interpretivism and Constructivism. Taken together, interpretivist and constructivist readings of CMO 15 reveal how the policy embeds a qualitative mindset in graduate education: one that values meaning over measurement, impact over output, and transformation over compliance. These perspectives articulate a vision of graduate education where research and learning are not only evaluated in numbers but also in terms of their ethical, intellectual, and societal significance.

Operational Framework. The operational framework translates the conceptual framework into a practical structure for analyzing CMO 15 (s. 2019) and surfacing its qualitative mindset. It provides the link between theoretical lenses (interpretivism and constructivism) and the observable indicators within the policy text, as well as their implications for graduate education practice.

The operational framework for analyzing CMO 15 begins with the identification and categorization of relevant policy statements, which are sorted into interpretivist clusters emphasizing meaning, ethics, and social alignment, and constructivist clusters focusing on learning processes, knowledge creation, and interdisciplinarity. These statements are then subjected to thematic coding, wherein interpretivist coding highlights values, context, leadership, and social impact, while constructivist coding captures learner agency, critical thinking, originality, and research-based learning. From this coding process, qualitative indicators are developed: for the interpretivist dimension, indicators such as ethical guidelines, national development orientation, and leadership articulation; and for the constructivist dimension, indicators such as interdisciplinary collaboration, research originality, and outcomes-based critical thinking. These indicators are then mapped against broader manifestations of qualitative thinking, including the prioritization of meaning over measurable outputs, transformation over compliance, and depth and originality over superficial metrics. Finally, the findings are synthesized to reveal how interpretivist and constructivist provisions in CMO 15 articulate a qualitative mindset, with implications for policy development in setting stronger qualitative benchmarks, for graduate education practice in fostering innovation, ethical scholarship, and social responsibility, and for research and innovation in advancing impact-driven and transformative contributions.

Statement of the Problem

Graduate education in the Philippines has historically faced challenges related to inconsistent quality, fragmented policies, and limited emphasis on research, innovation, and ethical scholarship (Orbeta, 2016; Salazar, 2020). While CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 15, Series of 2019 was issued to standardize policies, strengthen research-oriented training, and enhance competencies such as critical inquiry, leadership, and knowledge creation, questions remain regarding the qualitative dimensions embedded within the memorandum. Specifically, although measurable standards—such as faculty qualifications, curriculum hours, and research outputs—are clearly articulated, less attention has been given to how the policy fosters ethical reasoning, originality, interdisciplinary collaboration, and social impact.

This study is anchored on the following central problem: How does CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, Series of 2019 embody a qualitative mindset in Philippine graduate education in terms of indicators reflecting interpretivist and constructivist orientations in its provisions?

To address this overarching concern, the study seeks to answer the following specific questions:

1. Which provisions in CMO 15 reflect interpretivist orientations, emphasizing ethics, values, leadership, and social alignment?
2. Which provisions in CMO 15 reflect constructivist orientations, emphasizing knowledge creation, learner agency, interdisciplinarity, and innovation?
3. How can the qualitative indicators emerging from these interpretivist and constructivist clusters be synthesized to reveal the underlying qualitative mindset in CMO 15?

By addressing these questions, the study aimed to move beyond quantitative compliance measures and surface the transformative, value-driven, and innovation-oriented dimensions of graduate education as envisioned in CMO 15.

METHODOLOGY

Non-Positivist Research Paradigm

This study is grounded in the non-positivist research paradigm, which emphasizes subjective meaning-making, context, and interpretation rather than the search for universal, measurable laws. In the context of CMO 15, the concern is not to count outputs (e.g., number of graduate enrollees or research papers) but to uncover the qualitative dimensions of the policy—such as its ethical orientation, alignment with social needs, and transformative intent. Non-positivism allows the researcher to surface the underlying values, perspectives, and interpretive assumptions embedded in policy statements (Schwandt, 1994).

Qualitative Research Design

A qualitative research design was employed because the study seeks to explore and interpret the manifestations of qualitative thinking in CMO 15, rather than test a hypothesis through numerical data. This design facilitates an in-depth exploration of textual provisions, thematic connections, and interpretive clusters within the policy. By focusing on meaning rather than measurement, the qualitative design enables the identification of interpretivist (ethics, context, social impact) and constructivist (learning, knowledge creation, interdisciplinarity) themes in the policy framework (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Case Study Approach

The research adopts a case study approach, treating CMO 15 as a bounded case that represents a significant reform in Philippine graduate education. The case study method is appropriate because it allows a focused, context-rich analysis of one particular policy document, while still generating insights applicable to broader discussions of higher education reform. It situates the memorandum within the historical and institutional context of Philippine higher education, contrasting it with the fragmented conditions prior to its release (Yin, 2018).

Document Analysis and Knowledge Synthesis

The main research method is document analysis, wherein CMO 15 was systematically reviewed to identify interpretivist and constructivist statements. This process involved thematic coding, clustering provisions, and developing indicators of qualitative thinking. Document analysis allows the researcher to uncover the intentions, values, and discursive strategies embedded in the policy (Bowen, 2009).

The findings were then integrated using knowledge synthesis, which goes beyond coding to weave together themes into a coherent interpretation. Knowledge synthesis enables the articulation of how the interpretivist and constructivist provisions in CMO 15 collectively reflect a qualitative mindset, one that prioritizes meaning, transformation, ethics, and originality over mere quantitative outputs.

Analytical and Synthetic Instrument

The following is the matrix used for analyzing CMO 15:

Matrix 1 Matrix of Analysis for CMO 15 (s. 2019)

To systematically analyze policy statements in CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, s. 2019, the researchers identified interpretivist and constructivist orientations, and synthesize them into indicators of qualitative thinking in graduate education.

Matrix 2 Synthetic Instrument

Matrix 3 Example (Excerpt of the Instrument in Action)

Data Analysis

To analyze the qualitative mindset embedded in CMO 15, this study employed a stepwise operational procedure. First, relevant provisions were identified and categorized according to two analytical clusters: interpretivist statements, which emphasize meaning, ethics, and social alignment (Schwandt, 1994), and constructivist statements, which focus on learning processes, knowledge creation, and interdisciplinarity (Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978). Second, a process of thematic coding was applied. Interpretivist coding was used to surface themes related to values, context, leadership, and social impact, while constructivist coding highlighted learner agency, critical and creative thinking, originality, and research-based learning. Third, qualitative indicators were developed for each cluster. For the interpretivist dimension, indicators included the presence of ethical guidelines, orientation toward national development, and articulation of leadership roles. For the constructivist dimension, indicators included interdisciplinary collaboration, emphasis on research originality, and the promotion of outcomes-based critical thinking. Fourth, the indicators were mapped against broader manifestations of qualitative thinking, such as moving beyond measurable outputs to meaning and relevance, prioritizing transformation over compliance, and valuing depth, ethics, and originality in graduate education (Bernardo, 2017). Finally, the findings were synthesized to demonstrate how interpretivist and constructivist provisions collectively reflect the qualitative mindset within CMO 15, with implications for policy development, graduate education practice, and research and innovation (CHED, 2019).

The thematic clustering according to the qualitative interpretivist framework was guided by Matrix 4. The thematic clustering according to the qualitative constructivist framework was guided by Matrix 5.

Matrix 4 Indicators of a Qualitative Interpretivist Mindset

Table 5 Indicators of a Qualitative Constructivist Mindset

To help distinguish between the indicators of the two mindsets, Matrix 6 was used. Matrix 6 helped  weigh or prioritize one category over another should there be any doubt where a statement should fall under.

Table 6 Comparative Table: Interpretivist vs. Constructivist Mindset in Qualitative Research

Knowledge Synthesis

The knowledge of CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, Series of 2019 (CMO 15) is best synthesized in this study through a thematic integration of interpretivist and constructivist policy provisions. Instead of merely listing its content, the synthesis focuses on uncovering the qualitative mindset embedded in the policy and weaving it into a coherent narrative that reflects its transformative intent.

From Fragmentation to Coherence.  The synthesis process begins by moving from fragmented provisions (individual policy statements) toward thematic clusters. By categorizing provisions into interpretivist (values, ethics, social alignment) and constructivist (learning processes, knowledge creation, interdisciplinarity) orientations, the study organizes the policy into meaningful analytical categories (Bowen, 2009).

Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Orientations.  While CMO 15 introduces measurable standards (quantitative thinking), the synthesis highlights how these are complemented by provisions that prioritize ethics, leadership, originality, and national relevance (qualitative thinking). This dual emphasis is synthesized to show that graduate education reform is not just about compliance and outputs, but about transformation and impact (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Surfacing Indicators of a Qualitative Mindset.  Through thematic coding and indicator development, the study synthesizes knowledge by identifying how provisions manifest qualitative indicators—such as ethical guidelines, interdisciplinary collaboration, originality of research, and leadership formation. These indicators represent the “hidden curriculum” of CMO 15: the underlying values that guide graduate education beyond technical standards.

Connecting Policy to Broader Contexts.  Knowledge synthesis also involves situating CMO 15 within the historical trajectory of Philippine higher education (fragmentation before 2019, standardization after) and its alignment with global trends in graduate education. This contextualization allows the policy to be understood not as an isolated text, but as part of broader social, cultural, and developmental imperatives (Yin, 2018).

Producing Meaningful Insights for Practice and Policy.  Ultimately, the synthesis process transforms knowledge of CMO 15 into actionable insights for policymakers, educators, and researchers. By mapping how interpretivist and constructivist provisions embody a qualitative mindset, the study offers a framework for strengthening future policy development, graduate education practice, and research innovation.

RESULTS

The analytical matrix presents the results of a systematic examination of CMO 15, focusing on how its provisions reflect a qualitative mindset in Philippine graduate education. By categorizing policy statements into interpretivist themes (ethics, values, social alignment, national development) and constructivist themes (knowledge creation, interdisciplinarity, learner agency, innovation), the matrix highlights how CMO 15 moves beyond prescriptive, quantitative compliance toward meaningful, transformative educational practices. The results demonstrate that the memorandum does not only set minimum requirements for graduate programs but also embeds principles that emphasize ethical research, leadership development, originality, and national relevance. This analysis thus surfaces the qualitative dimensions of the policy, showing how it redefines graduate education as a vehicle for innovation, social responsibility, and long-term impact.

Matrix 7 Analytical Matrix of CMO 15 (s. 2019)

CMO 15 can be imagined as a rulebook for graduate schools in the Philippines, but one that goes beyond grades, numbers, or course hours. It sets expectations that graduate students should not only complete their courses but also produce research that is ethical, responsible, and socially useful. Graduate education is positioned as a driver of national development by producing leaders and policy thinkers who can contribute meaningfully to society. At the same time, students are encouraged to move beyond memorization and instead create new ideas, think critically, and solve problems in original ways. The memorandum also underscores the importance of interdisciplinarity, urging programs to integrate knowledge from fields such as technology, education, and the social sciences to address complex real-world issues. Moreover, it requires graduate faculty to be experts and active researchers rather than merely instructors, ensuring that learning takes place in a professional and innovative environment. In essence, CMO 15 emphasizes that graduate education must shape thinkers, innovators, and ethical leaders, not just degree holders.

In summary, the analytical matrix reveals that CMO 15 embeds a strong balance between standards for accountability and principles that nurture transformation. The interpretivist provisions highlight the policy’s concern with ethics, leadership, and alignment with national priorities, while the constructivist provisions emphasize interdisciplinarity, originality, and knowledge creation. Together, these clusters articulate a qualitative orientation that redefines graduate education as more than a technical process of producing graduates. Instead, it positions higher education as a dynamic force that shapes values, generates meaningful knowledge, and drives both national and global development. These insights form the foundation for deeper discussion on how CMO 15 embodies a shift from quantitative compliance toward qualitative innovation and impact.

Synthesis of Findings

Using the synthetic matrix, the provisions of CMO 15, s. 2019 were clustered under interpretivist (ethics, values, leadership, social alignment) and constructivist (knowledge creation, interdisciplinarity, learner agency) orientations. The synthesis of these clusters reveals three overarching insights:

Graduate Education as a Values-Driven Enterprise.  The interpretivist provisions consistently emphasize that graduate education must be rooted in ethics, integrity, and social responsibility. This moves policy beyond compliance with standards toward the cultivation of leaders and scholars who embody values essential for nation-building.

Graduate Education as a Site of Innovation and Knowledge Creation. The constructivist provisions highlight the central role of originality, interdisciplinarity, and critical thinking. By framing graduate programs as spaces for knowledge production and problem-solving, CMO 15 envisions education as a catalyst for innovation rather than a continuation of undergraduate training.

Integration of National and Global Relevance.  Both interpretivist and constructivist provisions converge in aligning graduate education with the needs of Philippine society while simultaneously benchmarking against international standards. This dual orientation ensures that Filipino graduates are both locally responsive and globally competitive.

Interpretivist statements in CMO 15 tell us that graduate education isn’t just about getting a diploma. It’s about creating ethical leaders and socially responsible thinkers who can guide communities and contribute to national progress.

Constructivist statements tell us that graduate education should push students to generate new knowledge, think across disciplines, and come up with innovative solutions to today’s problems.

When these two orientations are synthesized, we see that CMO 15 is shaping graduate education to be transformative — preparing graduates who are not only smart and skilled but also ethical, innovative, and globally relevant.

In essence, the synthesis shows that CMO 15 embeds a qualitative mindset: graduate education should transform individuals into leaders and innovators, not just produce degree holders. This marks a shift from quantitative measures of success (like enrollment or publication counts) toward qualitative impact (like ethics, originality, and social contribution).

DISCUSSION

The findings from both the analytical and the synthetic matrices closely align with the theoretical framework, which positions CMO 15 within interpretivist and constructivist perspectives. According to the framework, interpretivist theory emphasizes the subjective meaning, ethical considerations, and social context embedded in human action (Schwandt, 1994). This is reflected in the interpretivist provisions of CMO 15, which stress ethics, leadership, and alignment with national development goals. The analysis revealed that these provisions consistently prioritize values, social responsibility, and transformative intent—showing that graduate education is not merely about measurable outputs but about cultivating ethical and socially aware scholars.

Simultaneously, the constructivist dimension of the theoretical framework highlights knowledge creation, learner agency, and the construction of understanding through active engagement (Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978). This aligns with the constructivist provisions of CMO 15, which emphasize critical thinking, originality, research-based learning, and interdisciplinary problem-solving. The synthesis shows that these provisions collectively position graduate programs as sites for innovation, intellectual exploration, and the development of creative, adaptable professionals.

By integrating interpretivist and constructivist perspectives, the theoretical framework helps explain why and how CMO 15 fosters a qualitative mindset. It shows that the memorandum’s provisions are not isolated policy statements but interconnected strategies that promote ethical reasoning, knowledge creation, and social impact. The synthesis of the analysis illustrates that graduate education under CMO 15 is designed to produce transformative outcomes, consistent with the theoretical claim that learning and development are both socially constructed and contextually meaningful.

In short, the results of the study validate the theoretical framework: CMO 15 operationalizes interpretivist principles in its focus on values, ethics, and societal relevance, while it operationalizes constructivist principles through its emphasis on innovation, interdisciplinary learning, and research-based knowledge creation. Together, these theoretical lenses provide a coherent explanation for the qualitative orientation embedded in the policy.

Critique of the Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study, grounded in interpretivist and constructivist perspectives, provides a solid lens for understanding how CMO 15 embodies a qualitative mindset in graduate education. By emphasizing meaning-making, ethics, social alignment, knowledge creation, and learner agency, the framework effectively explains why the policy prioritizes transformative outcomes over mere compliance with quantitative metrics. This makes it particularly appropriate for analyzing provisions that focus on research ethics, leadership development, originality, interdisciplinarity, and societal relevance.

However, several limitations of the framework should be acknowledged:

Limited Emphasis on Policy Implementation Challenges.  While the framework captures the intended qualitative orientation of CMO 15, it does not explicitly account for potential implementation gaps. For example, interpretivist ideals like ethics and leadership may be difficult to actualize if institutions lack resources, adequately trained faculty, or supportive administrative structures.

Context-Specific Focus. The framework assumes that qualitative thinking manifests clearly through textual analysis of the policy. It may underrepresent the practical and operational complexities in real-world settings, such as institutional culture, student preparedness, or faculty capacity.

Insufficient Integration with Quantitative Outcomes. Although the study aims to highlight qualitative thinking, graduate education is still evaluated through measurable outcomes like research productivity, graduation rates, and employability. The framework does not explicitly reconcile how qualitative and quantitative dimensions interact, potentially limiting its comprehensiveness in explaining the full impact of CMO 15.

Despite these limitations, the theoretical framework remains highly valuable for this study because it allows for a nuanced exploration of CMO 15, uncovering how the memorandum embodies values, innovation, and transformative learning. The framework’s focus on meaning-making and knowledge construction ensures that the study goes beyond surface-level analysis and captures the deeper qualitative intent of the policy.

Suggestions to strengthen the theoretical framework

Integrate a Policy Implementation Lens. While interpretivist and constructivist perspectives capture the intended qualitative mindset, they do not address how policies are operationalized in real institutions. To strengthen the framework it should Include a framework or model from policy implementation theory (e.g., Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980) to account for institutional capacity, resource allocation, and faculty preparedness. This would allow the study to analyze not just what CMO 15 prescribes, but how its qualitative intentions can realistically be realized.

Incorporate a Mixed-Methods Perspective for Triangulation. The current framework emphasizes qualitative thinking but risks underrepresenting measurable outcomes such as research productivity, graduation rates, or international recognition. To strengthen the framework it should integrate a complementary quantitative lens to compare qualitative provisions with actual or projected institutional outputs. This could help show how qualitative thinking and quantitative measures interact, enhancing the comprehensiveness of the framework.

Embed Contextual and Cultural Sensitivity. Graduate education occurs within specific institutional, national, and cultural contexts. The current framework may overlook how local practices, student demographics, and cultural values influence the manifestation of qualitative thinking. To strengthen the framework it should incorporate contextualized interpretivist approaches or sociocultural theories (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978) to examine how provisions in CMO 15 are interpreted and enacted differently across institutions.

Include Stakeholder Perspectives. Policies are interpreted differently by faculty, administrators, and students. The framework currently focuses on the text of the policy rather than its reception or perceived meaning. To strengthen the framework it should extend the framework to include stakeholder interpretation and feedback. This aligns with interpretivist principles while capturing real-world variations in how qualitative thinking is understood and implemented.

Establish Clear Operational Indicators. The framework highlights themes like ethics, originality, and interdisciplinarity, but these are abstract concepts that can be difficult to measure consistently. To strengthen the framework it should define operational indicators for each interpretivist and constructivist theme, such as: (1) Ethics → number of explicit ethical guidelines in curriculum or research policies; (2) Originality → proportion of research outputs demonstrating novel approaches; and (3) Interdisciplinarity → number of programs/projects crossing disciplinary boundaries. This would make the framework more actionable and transparent in guiding the analysis.

By integrating policy implementation theory, a mixed-methods perspective, contextual and stakeholder considerations, and operational indicators, the framework can move from a purely interpretive lens to a comprehensive analytical tool that captures both the intentions and the real-world manifestations of qualitative thinking in CMO 15.

Implementation Challenges and Actionable Considerations

While CMO 15 (s. 2019) articulates a transformative vision for graduate education, its realization across diverse Philippine higher education institutions may encounter several implementation challenges. Addressing these challenges is crucial for translating the policy’s qualitative aspirations into measurable and sustainable outcomes.

One key challenge lies in faculty readiness and development. The policy assumes that graduate faculty are not only subject-matter experts but also active researchers, ethical mentors, and facilitators of innovation. However, this expectation may be hindered by varying levels of faculty preparedness, especially among those in smaller or resource-constrained institutions who may lack formal research training, interdisciplinary exposure, or experience in mentoring qualitative inquiry. To address this, institutions can implement structured faculty development programs focusing on qualitative research methods, ethical supervision, and innovation pedagogy. Faculty research immersion through funded collaborations with research universities, industry partners, or government R&D projects can also enhance capacity. Moreover, establishing peer mentoring and research clusters within institutions may foster shared learning and interdisciplinary synergy. Strengthening faculty capacity ensures that teaching and research reinforce each other as processes of knowledge creation and transformation—embodying CMO 15’s qualitative intent.

Another critical area involves institutional resources and research infrastructure. The shift from compliance-based education to innovation-driven scholarship requires an ecosystem that supports creativity, interdisciplinarity, and ethical inquiry. However, institutions may face constraints in funding, laboratory access, library resources, or administrative flexibility that limit interdisciplinary research and graduate student projects. To mitigate these challenges, institutions can develop research hubs or centers of excellence that provide both logistical and intellectual support for qualitative and interdisciplinary studies. Reallocating institutional budgets to prioritize research mentoring, publication assistance, and ethical review systems—rather than merely compliance reporting—can also reinforce CMO 15’s objectives. Furthermore, building partnerships with local governments, NGOs, and industries can extend graduate research applications to real-world community and development contexts. Such institutional investments create environments that nurture innovation, collaboration, and social relevance.

A third area of concern is assessment and quality assurance. CMO 15 emphasizes qualitative outcomes such as ethical leadership, originality, and societal contribution over purely quantitative metrics like publication counts or completion rates. This philosophical shift introduces new challenges in monitoring program effectiveness because existing assessment systems are often designed around quantitative indicators, making it difficult to evaluate values-based, creative, or context-specific outcomes. Institutions can respond by developing qualitative assessment rubrics that capture students’ growth in ethical reasoning, critical inquiry, and innovative problem-solving. Reflective portfolios, narrative documentation, and peer review mechanisms can be integrated into graduate program evaluation, while community and industry feedback can provide additional perspectives on the social and developmental impact of research outputs. Redefining assessment systems in this way aligns evaluation practices with the interpretivist and constructivist values embedded in CMO 15, allowing institutions to measure not just what students produce but also how they think, act, and lead.

Thus, to fully implement the qualitative vision of CMO 15 (s. 2019), higher education institutions must move beyond compliance toward capacity building, resource strengthening, and outcome redefinition. Faculty readiness ensures that qualitative mindsets are modeled in teaching and mentorship; institutional support provides the structural foundation for creativity and ethical inquiry; and qualitative assessment systems ensure that transformative learning is both visible and valued. When these enablers are in place, CMO 15’s interpretivist and constructivist provisions can truly reshape Philippine graduate education into a values-driven, innovative, and socially grounded system—one that produces not only degree holders but also ethical leaders and original thinkers.

CONCLUSION

The analysis and synthesis of CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, Series of 2019 reveal that the policy embeds a strong qualitative orientation in Philippine graduate education. By foregrounding interpretivist and constructivist principles, CMO 15 emphasizes ethics, social responsibility, leadership, knowledge creation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and innovation. This qualitative mindset extends beyond mere compliance with measurable standards, highlighting the transformative potential of graduate education to develop ethical leaders, critical thinkers, and socially responsive innovators.

Implications for policy development include the need for future graduate education directives to integrate qualitative benchmarks alongside quantitative measures. Policies should explicitly address values, ethical research practices, interdisciplinarity, and social impact, ensuring that regulations not only maintain academic rigor but also cultivate meaningful learning experiences that respond to national and global priorities.

For graduate education practice, the qualitative orientation encourages institutions to design programs that prioritize depth, creativity, learner agency, and transformative learning. Faculty development, mentorship, and research-based teaching become central to fostering an environment where students actively construct knowledge and engage in socially relevant problem-solving. This approach positions graduate programs as incubators for leadership, originality, and professional identity rather than mere credentialing.

In terms of research innovation, the memorandum’s qualitative emphasis promotes originality, ethical inquiry, and socially impactful scholarship. By valuing interdisciplinary approaches and divergent thinking, CMO 15 encourages graduate students and faculty to generate novel solutions to complex societal challenges, contributing to the nation’s development and global knowledge production.

Overall, the qualitative orientation of CMO 15 signals a shift from viewing graduate education as a technical or numerical exercise toward framing it as a transformative enterprise. It positions graduate programs in the Philippines as vehicles for intellectual growth, ethical responsibility, and innovation—producing graduates who are not only competent but also capable of making meaningful contributions to society and advancing global scholarship.

REFERENCES

1. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2017). Higher education reform in the Philippines: Learning from the past and looking forward. Asian Education and Development Studies, 6(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-05-2017-0068
2. BJPsych Advances. (n.d.). Theoretical frameworks used to inform qualitative mental health research: A focus on positivism, interpretivism and critical realism. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/article/theoretical-frameworks-used-to-inform-qualitative-mental-health-research-a-focus-on-positivism-interpretivism-and-critical-realism
3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
4. (2019). CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, Series of 2019: Policies, standards and guidelines for graduate education. Commission on Higher Education.
5. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
6. DeCarlo, M., Cummings, S., & Agnelli, C. (n.d.). 3: Social work research paradigms. Social Science LibreTexts. Retrieved from https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/ Graduate research methods in social work (DeCarlo Cummings and Agnelli)/07%3A Conceptualizing your research project -Theory and paradigm/7.03%3 A Social work research paradigms
7. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). SAGE Publications.
8. EdTech Books. (n.d.). The constructivist (or interpretivism) paradigm. Brigham Young University. Retrieved from https://open.byu.edu/eval and design/research principles
9. Kamal, S. S. L. B. A. (2019). Research paradigm and the philosophical foundations of a qualitative study. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 1386–1394. https://grdspublishing.org/index.php/people/article/view/749
10. (n.d.). Unit 1 – Qualitative thinking. Retrieved from https://neuroqual.org/v2/unit1
11. Open University. (n.d.). Engaging with postgraduate research: Features of interpretivism. Retrieved from https://www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/engaging-postgraduate-research-education-childhood-youth/content-section-3.5
12. Orbeta, A. C. (2016). The Philippine higher education system: Quality, relevance, and governance. Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series, No. 2016-17.
13. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
14. (2012, March 14). Interpretivism and positivism (ontological and epistemological perspectives). Retrieved from https://prabash78.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/interpretivism-and-postivism-ontological-and-epistemological-perspectives/
15. Research-Methodology. (n.d.). Constructivism research philosophy. Retrieved from https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/epistomology/constructivism/
16. Salazar, J. M. (2020). Graduate education in the Philippines: Challenges and policy directions in the 21st century. Journal of Philippine Education Policy, 5(2), 33–49.
17. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Sage.
18. Simply Psychology. (n.d.). Interpretivism paradigm & research philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/interpretivism-paradigm.html
19. Tan, C. (2018). The K to 12 reform in the Philippines: Problems and prospects. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1460255
20. University of North Florida Pressbooks. (n.d.). Research paradigms in scientific inquiry – Qualitative research in action. Retrieved from https://unf.pressbooks.pub/qualitativeresearch/chapter/chapter-1-2/
21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
22. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.