73 Evaluation of MCD sessions All MCD sessions started with exploring various participants’ cases and the joint choice of one specific dilemma to be discussed. This step was often mentioned as essential for the overall experience. Participants stated they needed a degree of recognition or the feeling of being involved in the dilemma to participate in MCD constructively. Collecting cases, however, sometimes proved to be difficult. A facilitator mentions: ‘We had to search for cases while plenty are available’. Some participants found it difficult to see the moral dimension in a situation: what makes a case a moral matter? According to a few participants, some discussed cases lacked urgency. Facilitators emphasized the need for participants to feel safe while introducing their case and to make the conversation method work. Due to our research design, the dilemma method was the set method; a part of the participants and facilitators felt ‘constrained’ by this. Evaluation of the dialogue among participants Prison staff and facilitators rated the participation of participants in a dialogue differently (shown in Table 3). Facilitators were more critical about the item participants ask each other open-ended questions, which shows the lowest score of all items. The qualitative data from the single sessions support the critical scores regarding dialogical skills. According to participants and facilitators, the main areas that need improvements are: ‘speaking without being interrupted by others’, ‘listening actively’ (especially regarding colleagues with different opinions), and ‘asking more open-ended questions’. A participant states the need to: ‘really listen to each other, refraining from making judgments and criticizing’. However, we as well noticed many participants that appeared satisfied with these aspects during their MCD. Participants and facilitators stated opinions on why dialogical skills need attention; participants tend to respond immediately with solutions and quickly pass judgments. According to the facilitators, participants turn conversations into a discussion. A facilitator stated: ‘Participants tend to make the conversation more abstract and are very much solution-oriented.’ Table 3. Evaluation scores, dialogue of participants, rounded averages, 5- or 10-point scale By MCD participants By MCD facilitators How do you rate the quality of the dialogue in this meeting? 7.6 /10 6.7 /10 The participants allowed each other to finish their sentences 4.1 /5 3.6 /5 Participants asked each other open questions 3.9 /5 2.9 /5 Participants respected each other’s ideas/ opinions 4.3 /5 3.9 /5 3