56 Chapter 2 Although the mix of teams selected in this research creates a multidisciplinary overview of moral themes, a limitation in our research might be our decision to use team-based MCD sessions. This decision may have led to fewer reported dilemmas related to multidisciplinary teamwork. The reason for team-based participation was to guarantee a safe space to talk freely, without potential influences of hierarchy during MCD. The MCD facilitators were trained to support and create such a safe and open atmosphere. We noticed in the evaluation forms that, compared to the MCD facilitators, prison staff shared less detailed information about the moral dilemmas. This led to the exclusions of some sessions, however not that many. No systematic reasons were seen leading up to this type of exclusion of the data. Data provided by the MCD facilitators were leading during the analysis, since case-details were often needed for a more in depthinterpretation for coding and categorization the dilemmas. Perhaps prison staff were less able to articulate on paper the moral dimensions of situations, since MCD was new to them. By contrast, the MCD facilitators received a specific training on how to recognize and formulate a dilemma or moral question. A lack of time to fill out the evaluation forms might also be an explanation, since it was a noncompulsory task for participants, which had to be performed during working hours immediately after an MCD session. In our analysis every dilemma was assigned to only one main theme and subtheme. Arbitrary categorization could not always be avoided, as some cases fit in more than one theme. We deliberately did not quantify data, e.g., regarding the number of moral dilemmas occurring in one main theme or subtheme. Since we hope the weight of themes should be measured by the content itself and because challenging cases could be assigned to more than one theme. We discussed such challenging cases multiple times with at least three researchers. After consulting additional notes about observations regarding the formulations of dilemmas, with the three researchers (including one senior) we reached for consensus. Only with this consensus we made a final categorization. In some cases of those challenging cases, a lack of contextual information created doubt. We then chose the option closest to the dilemma formulation provided in the evaluation form. There seems to be an overlap between two main themes: ‘complying’ and ‘deviating’ could be considered as two sides of one question. Separate main themes were justified since they show a difference in the positioning of dilemmas within the organization: a) ‘compliance’ concerns hierarchical matters, showing only individual decisions toward superiors, while b) ‘deviation’ is a subtheme focused on more action-oriented matters from daily practice, where cases show collective decision-making processes.