Abstract
AbstractWe present a study about an ethics support instrument, Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), which is used to support and further professionalize Dutch prison staff. MCD can facilitate prison staff in dealing with moral dilemmas from practice. We present an embedded mixed-methods study on the experienced outcomes of 16 teams participating in both single and in series of MCD sessions. Prison staff and MCD facilitators completed evaluation forms (n = 871 by staff, and n = 122 by facilitators) after participating in a single MCD session (n = 131). Staff filled out another evaluation form (n = 149) after participating in a series of 10 MCD sessions. Our multilevel quantitative analyses show overall positive outcomes, with significant differences between professional disciplines. Prison staff, e.g., reported a better understanding of the discussed moral dilemma and the related perspectives of colleagues. The qualitative thematic content analysis of the experienced outcomes of single MCD sessions resulted in 8 outcome categories, e.g., improved moral awareness, awareness of responsibilities and limitations in decision-making, and feeling empowered to address issues. The experienced outcomes of MCD provide some insights in the process of fostering moral learning of prison staff; staff gained moral awareness, and improved their perspective-taking and the ability to better control their frustrations and emotions. Further research should focus on studying the impact of MCD on moral decision-making in the day-to-day practice of prison staff and on what the organization can learn from the MCD sessions.
Funder
Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency of the Ministry of Justice and Security in the Netherlands
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference46 articles.
1. Abma, T., Molewijk, B., & Widdershoven, G. (2009). Good care in ongoing dialogue. Improving the quality of care through moral deliberation and responsive evaluation. Health Care Analysis: HCA: Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 17(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-008-0102-z
2. Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(10), 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662
3. Brookfield, S. (1998). Understanding and facilitating moral learning in adults. Journal of Moral Education, 27(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724980270302
4. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
5. DCIA. (2016). Vakmanschap en de vakmanschapsladder—Divisie GW/VB [Craftsmanship and its developmental steps—division prisons and detention centres] [DCIA internal document].
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献