182 Chapter 7 to the needs of participants and the collaborative learning process on how to best implement MCD in this new DCIA context. We did not take a neutral stance toward MCD at DCIA. Based on our experience with MCD, mostly in health care institutions, all involved researchers are of the opinion – generally speaking – that MCD is good for an organization. As mentioned in Reflection 1, there are conditions in which MCD would not be advised. However, we believe MCD can often be of value to stimulate and facilitate moral reflections, and thereby more moral actions, in organizations. Based on the wish of DCIA to create a more reflective organization, we wanted MCD to positively impact prison staff and their MCS. It is fair to say that we, as researchers, cannot ‘park’ or ‘pause’ this perspective on MCD. However, I was always aware of my perspective. During analyses, I consciously realized and agreed that a negative or neutral outcome of our study on the impact of MCD on MCS would also be a worthwhile outcome. My notion of the pragmatic hermeneutic approach of ‘resistance’, as mentioned in Reflection 1, helped me, because I see ‘less positive results’ as opportunities to learn. Unavoidable challenging organizational aspects that influence the impact of MCD External factors, other than what happens during MCD, play a role when you try to capture the impact of MCD on participants. You cannot isolate the sessions from other circumstances that may influence staff members’ views, experiences, and attitudes. Organizational events may affect respondents’ answers to items about MCD or MCS. For example, we could not have foreseen the sudden closing of research locations. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Ministry of Justice and Security in 2018 closed some prison locations, two of which were part of this research. The period before and during these closures affected Dutch prison staff. We, as researchers, also experienced some struggles. We had to finish the MCD series and collect our post-measurements earlier than planned at Zwaag and Almere. At that time, insecurities and frustrations of the staff about the process were present. To ensure the circumstances of the closing of prisons did not influence our data too much (although it would be unclear what ‘too much’ would mean), we analyzed the differences in results of the MCSQ of locations that did and those that did not close in 2018. As Chapter 5 stated, multiple regression analyses showed how excluding the prisons of Almere and Zwaag on the item level showed some decreases or increases on the item level; however, it did not change the results in a particular direction. Furthermore, some challenging circumstances showed to be present at all locations, not just at the ones closing. We experienced how managers often changed locations and