Maner, "The Practicum Method"

SOURCE FOR THE PROCEDURE

THE PROCEDURE ITSELF

1. Form an "ethics committee" of at least five persons.
2. Working collaboratively and iteratively, frame a specific question that creates the desired ethical dilemma.
   1. Keep an issue log showing the original version of this question and all subsequent versions.
   2. Use the template, "Is it true that X should Y assuming Z?
   3. Refine the question, replacing any terms that are vague, ambiguous, or emotionally charged.
   4. Refine the question by deleting elements until it raises exactly one well-defined issue.
   5. Refine the question by adding "assumption riders" to eliminate potential factual or empirical issues.
   6. Refine the question so that both "yes" and "no" answers appear to be equally defensible. This creates the dilemma.
   7. Finally, verify that the question has ethical content.
      • It cannot be answered merely by surveying opinions.
      • It cannot be answered merely by collecting empirical evidence.
      • It cannot be fully answered by appealing to policy, legal precedent, or social norms.
      • It cannot be fully answered without exploring judgments of value.
      • It cannot be fully answered without applying some ethical principle.
3. Working collaboratively and iteratively, construct a scenario (ethical story or vignette) of about 150 words.
   1. Refine this scenario until it evokes your main ethical question without having to state it explicitly.
   2. Test whether this evocation works by showing the scenario to someone outside your workgroup.
   3. Refine this scenario until it includes all, and only, the relevant facts, events, times or dates, persons or groups, actions, and their relevant consequences.
4. Working collaboratively, refer to your issue log and write a report that explains clearly why each small change was made.
   1. Explain why you used a particular term rather than a synonym.
   2. Explain why you found it necessary to add qualifiers (adjectives or adverbs).
   3. Explain why you found it necessary to make assumptions.
5. Working collaboratively and iteratively, construct at least three persuasive arguments on each side (yes and no).
   1. Give each argument a descriptive name.
   2. Refine each argument stepwise, and number each step.
   3. Each step should be a simple declarative sentence or a hypothetical of the form "If X then Y."
   4. Start with a set of premises (assumptions both sides should be willing to accept).
   5. Create the body of the argument step by step.
      • Introduce statements offering new evidence,
      • Add connecting statements ("if A then B").
      • Introduce statements that draw conclusions based on previous steps ("Therefore ...").
   6. End with a final conclusion that mirrors the main question:
      • Use the template "Therefore, Yes, it is true that X should Y assuming Z" or "Therefore, No, it is not true that X should Y assuming Z".
      • If any qualifications or assumptions were introduced in earlier steps, splice these into the final conclusion.
   7. Do not omit any steps.
   8. Do not combine any steps. Split apart all compound or complex sentences (except hypotheticals).
   9. If necessary, reorder the steps so that no earlier step is dependent on a later step.
   10. Once the argument has been constructed, give special attention to steps that represent intermediate conclusions.
       • Use the template, "Therefore, ..." for these steps.
       • Identify by number the prior steps on which the conclusion depends.
6. Working collaboratively, and where appropriate, raise objections to these arguments.
   1. Objections should be directed against a specific numbered step.
   2. List each objection underneath the statement (step) to which it is directed. A given step may draw more than one objection.
   3. Objections can be entire arguments in their own right.
   4. Objections should be raised only if they are strong enough to threaten the argument.
   5. Use the generic template "X because Y" where X is the complaint and Y is the reason why you believe the complaint is valid.
      • "False because ..."
      • "Overstated because ..."
      • "Misleading because ..."
      • "Irrelevant because ..."
      • "A non-sequitur because ..."
      • "Vague because ..."
      • "Ambiguous because ..."
   6. If objecting to a "yes" argument, verify that the objection favors the "no" position, and vice versa; likewise for the "no" side.
   7. Improve the argument to avoid the objection or, if this is not possible, allow the objection to stand.
7. Working collaboratively, and where appropriate, make replies to the objections.
   1. Replies should be directed against a specific objection.
   2. List replies underneath the objection to which they are directed. A given objection may draw more than one reply.
   3. Replies usually consist of single statements.
   4. A reply may simply rehabilitate the objectionable step by changing what it says.
   5. Replies should be made only if they are strong enough to threaten the objection.
   6. If replying to an objection to a "yes" argument, verify that the reply favors the "yes" position; likewise for the "no" side.
8. Working collaboratively, and where appropriate, make counter-replies to these replies.
   1. Counter-replies should be directed against a specific reply.
   2. List counter-replies underneath the reply to which they are directed.
   3. Counter-replies usually consist of single statements.
   4. Counter-replies should be made only if they are strong enough to threaten the reply.
   5. If counter-replying to a reply to an objection to a "yes"argument, verify that the counter-reply favors the "no" position; likewise for the "no" side.
9. Working individually, take a stand on the issue. Reach a "verdict of one."
   1. All things considered, if you had to reach a decision on the main issue today and could not split your vote, which side would you support and why?
   2. Justify your position in an argumentative essay.
      • Rank the arguments on each side from strong to weak, then explain your ranking.
      • Compare the best "yes" argument with the best "no" argument, then explain why one is better.
      • Assess impact of objections on the arguments they target.
      • Determine whether each objection is, in the final analysis, stronger or weaker than its reply.
      • Identify the factors (if any) that were pivotal in reaching your decision.

WALT'S CHECKLIST

• This method is most useful when the DECISION-MAKER ...
  • can tolerate ambiguity, complexity or conflict [setp 2f]
  • has easy access to advisors, consultants or role-players [step 1+]
  • has plenty of time for investigation and analysis
  • is skilled in conflict- or dilemma-resolution methods [step 9]
  • is skilled in dialectical reasoning or debate [steps 6-8]
  • is skilled in semantic or conceptual analysis [step 4]
  • is skilled in the application of general ethical principles to specific cases
  • is skilled in the formulation and evaluation of ethical arguments [step 5]
• This method is most useful in a SITUATION ...
  
  • that will change little over time
• This method is most useful when STAKEHOLDERS ...
  • share ethical principles

Index