Thesis

105 Defining and measuring moral craftsmanship Since the questionnaire needs to be usable for all professionals – also those without experience regarding ethics and its concepts – we tried to avoid difficult phrases or concepts such as ‘moral’. However, in some items such words were unavoidable. For example, during the think-aloud interviews, the participants were asked about their interpretation of ‘difficult situations’ or ‘moral dilemmas’. One or two participants gave explanations that were not in line with our intention, and we, therefore, added explanations to three concepts in the MCSQ. We changed words in items to create more consistency, for example, by only using ‘good’ instead of having more varieties (‘right’ et cetera). Additionally, when explanations of answers differed significantly between participants, we excluded the item, because it was multi-interpretable. Furthermore, when items showed overlap, even in the explanations of their answers, we kept the item with the least risk of socially desired responses. So, for example, we excluded ‘I acknowledge when I did something wrong’ and kept an item about potentially ‘blaming’ others or circumstances when something goes wrong. DISCUSSION This study contributed to the understanding of the concept of MCS and made the first steps toward making it possible to measure MCS. Via explorative literature and document study, and based on our professional exchange on the concept of MCS, input for a definition and the conceptual elements of MCS were identified. We identified three levels of conceptual elements of MCS, focusing on individuals (cognition, attitude, and actions), teams, and leadership. Based on this conceptual mind map, we tried to operationalize the concept of MCS by developing a first version of a questionnaire (MCSQ). The MSCQ now contains 70 items to measure the MCS of professionals in an organization. The domains of the MCSQ are: the general presence of reflexivity, awareness, judging and reasoning, consulting others, taking action, looking back, interaction, and leadership. MCS is a concept that was already used in the context of Dutch prison staff (DCIA, 2016; DCIA Educational Institute, 2014). DCIA commissioned us to develop this concept further, define it, and study it in practice; before and after an intervention (i.e., Moral Case Deliberation with prison staff). Existing descriptions of related concepts inspired the development of our vision of the concept of MCS. The ideas of ’craftsmanship’ ideas from Sennett (2009) were a great inspirational source for the further development of the 4

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw