180 Chapter 7 eventually potential empowering effect for prison staff (this Reflection) underline the importance of ‘shared ownership’ of MCD (also referred to as ‘co-ownership’). Such shared ownership of MCD entails that all stakeholders are involved in the implementation of MCD, and that choices related to the use and implementation of MCD strongly connect with the hopes and motivations of participants (Weidema et al., 2016). We tried to involve prison staff from all disciplines during the implementation through our responsive approach, the mid-term interviews, and inviting staff to join the local steering committees. We learned that, on the one hand, the protocolled and relatively hierarchical DCIA context made creating co-ownership of MCD challenging. On the other hand, we learned that MCD provides opportunities for prison staff to think for themselves, look beyond protocols, challenge the perspectives of others, and try to expand their own scope of influence (e.g., by asking questions and addressing issues). In addition, MCD can help to create a safe space to ask each other about the why of thoughts, decisions, or actions. Eventually, MCD seems capable of contributing to an empowering effect on participants and their moral courage. Reflection 3 Methodological challenges when researching the impact of MCD We often heard – mostly from directors and managers – the need to know more about what MCD contributes, with an expressed wish for providing more than just raising awareness. Providing an intervention that fosters moral awareness in an organization, and proving it, could already be a worthwhile accomplishment. However, as researchers, we also felt a need to contribute to increasing our insights on the impact of MCD. Quantitative results are often lacking in current MCD research. Our innovative and explorative study – focusing on MCS, with a prison context, and a combined responsive and regulated approach – led to some challenges. I will reflect on tensions concerning our research design, role as researchers, and external factors influencing research conditions. Tensions within our approach and design We needed to bring regulations into our design to create conditions suitable for an impact study. For example, we planned a series of 10 MCD sessions for each team with regular facilitators and the same conversation method. However, this did not match the responsive and more dialogical approach to implementing MCD (Weidema et al., 2016), in which participants should have more room to influence the conditions of MCD. Using a responsive approach and having some regulated conditions for MCD created tensions. In hindsight, as the below quote of Kierkegaard illustrates, we now understand that some