91 Defining and measuring moral craftsmanship INTRODUCTION Ethically challenging situations occur in many different contexts and professional disciplines (e.g., De Panfilis et al., 2019; Kowalski, 2020; Schaap et al., 2022; Van Baarle, 2018). Such ethical challenges are an inherent part of daily practice (Kvalnes, 2019). However, professionals tend to ‘get on with the job’ instead of paying attention to those challenging situations (Parker, 2012). An experienced professional is expected to take morality into account in daily practice, not only by applying ethical rules and codes of conduct but also by considering ‘more variables and aspects to deal with confusing ethical issues’ (Falender & Shafranske, 2007). Morally loaded situations are considered to be ‘messy’. To adequately deal with such messy problems, professionals must show ‘professional reflexivity’ (Schön, 1983). Kunneman (2012, 2015) mentioned the need for ‘normative professionalism’ and stated that this requires foregrounding the normative and moral content of professional knowledge and action. He states that this focus on morality in professions is needed to provide an ‘anti-dote against the increasing dominance of instrumental and technocratic forms of professionalism’ (Kunneman, 2012, p. 12). Sennett (2009) used the term ‘craftsmanship’ and emphasized that it inherently includes ethical values and views for any profession since a craftsman has the desire to do a job well for its own sake. In the context of prison work, so far, studies on the ethics of prison staff primarily focus on ethical codes of conduct, pre-employment integrity test, or clear normative excesses and breaches of integrity (as seen in, e.g., Torres and Turvey 2013; Murdoch and Vaclav 2016; Tatman 2022). These studies indeed show a dominance of instrumental and technocratic forms of professionalism. However, given the ethical challenges related to the prison context (Schaap et al., 2022; White et al., 2014), we believe there is a need for more focus on the broader notion of ethics of prison work. In the Dutch context, the term moral craftsmanship (MCS) was introduced at the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DCIA) (DCIA, 2016; DCIA Educational Institute, 2014). This concept was derived from practice but showed a link to the ‘craftsmanship’ of Sennett (2009), and the more abstract ideas on ‘normative professionalism’ by Kunneman (2012, 2015; Van Ewijk & Kunneman, 2013). These existing constructs have received some attention in literature yet without operationalizations that can be used in daily work practices. More so than in the mentioned constructs, ideally, MCS should more specifically address what ‘doing a job well’ in practice entails for a professional. Furthermore, MCS should not only have attention to individual dimensions, but also on how professionals function within a team 4