Score
TRANSCRIPT NUMBER:
0
A. Core values of a domain /
profession
(guiding principles, ethos)
Does not address
1
Introduces idea of
domain values / guiding
principles
The purpose of science is to
help others.
Identifies specific values
that are particularly
relevant in this dilemma
Scientists have a goal of
solving problems for society,
and this expectation affected
how each party acted in the
situation leading to the
dilemma.
MISSION
Considers whether
specific situation merits
compromising values
Considers idea of “right
vs. right,” “lesser of evils”
B. Compromises and
consequences if values are
compromised or violated
STANDARDS
2
Introduces concept of
compromised work
Does not address
While Mark values data
quality, he is not willing to
share his own data at the
cost of losing recognition in
his field.
Recognizes that main
actor must consider his /
her responsibilities in the
scenario
C. Responsibility of actors
Does not address
Mark needs to decide what
is more important to him:
disseminating scientific
information, or ensuring that
others don’t take credit for
his scientific work.
Because Mark is concerned
with making scientific data
more high-quality and
accessible, and there was a
risk of incorrect data being
disseminated, it is possible
that in this circumstance,
making sure that incorrect
data was removed and
correct data was given in its
place was more important
than making sure that Mark’s
contribution would be
acknowledged.
Identifies responsibilities
of main actor and other
individuals noting
possible differences and
competing / conflicting
responsibilities
Although Mark assumed that
the organization had the
responsibility to acknowledge
the data as Mark’s
contribution, the need for the
organization to appear that it
is checking for data quality
on its own without outside
help (to maintain a reputation
for quality) overrided the
need for the organization to
3
Names values, describes
why important to identify
core values of a profession
Scientists have a value of
reporting and ensuring
accountability of findings to the
public; it is important because
then society will trust the
findings of science and the
respect between science and
society is preserved.
Weighs the pros and cons
of compromising values,
and consequences of any
outright violations to actors
in specific situation and
field/domain in general
While the organization may
have fulfilled their value of
quality by changing the data on
their website to Mark’s data,
they neglected values of
professional conduct and
encouraging rewarding and
supportive relationships by
betraying Mark’s trust.
Considers said
responsibilities and takes a
position on them based on
argument relating to
mission / values / self. While
the organization values quality,
because science is a field that
ultimately depends on society
to trust them, they should not
have misrepresented the new
data as being their work and
should have given Mark his
deserved credit.
TRANSCRIPT NUMBER:
follow professional conduct.
SELF
D. Neighborly morality & ethics of
role
E. Individual background,
expertise, beliefs, values
Identifies issues relating
to neighborly morality
and ethics of role in the
dilemma (eg personperson relations outside
of work context simpler
than those filtered
through professional
role)
Does not address
Does not address
While under normal
circumstances, Mark might
not tolerate someone not
giving him credit for
something he had done,
because of the influence
that other professionals in
the field may have on his
career, Mark was
discouraged by his mentor
and other professors from
complaining about not being
given credit.
Recognizes that
individual background,
expertise, beliefs, values
of individual actor in
dilemma as relevant to
how he handles the
dilemma
Mark’s initial sense of
altruism and high regard for
other practitioners in the
field affects how he first
views the conflict
concerning the
organization’s use of his
data: with shock that his
trust could be betrayed.
Identifies relationship
between the two – are
they in alignment or are
they in conflict?
Considers idea of
“disinterestedness” in
professional role
In this circumstance, Mark’s
desire to seek recognition for
his work is not in alignment
with an expectation of
respecting (or not
questioning) those in
authority. However, in favor
of advancing professionally
so Mark can continue making
contributions to the field,
Mark may consider letting go
of his grudge and continuing
to make strong contributions
to scientific research and
data management.
Analyzes how these
particular factors
influence how the
dilemma is handled
His initial admiration of and
sentiments of goodwill for the
field cause Mark to feel
conflicted when he learns
that he will not receive
acknowledgement for these
qualities, something he also
wishes for personally.
Takes a position on how the
actor should navigate these
various standards with a
well-supported justification
Considers idea of
“disinterestedness” in
professional role, putting
aside of personal interests
for greater good.
Mark should not allow his
interest in gaining recognition
prevent him from providing
important data to others in the
field. Although Mark felt
maligned by the way the
organization treated him, he
should consider the greater
benefit that sharing his data
has on the field – in terms of
ensuring that correct data is
being used in the field and also
that the information provided by
his field can be trusted by
society.
Takes a position on to what
extent he/she aggress with
how individual actor
navigated the dilemma,
making connections to
ideas about mission and
standard
I can understand why Mark
decided to “play hardball”.
Because he has this new
notion of the field as being very
“political”, in a sense Mark has
now been motivated to play
politics as well - except in a
manner that protects his own
interests. Given that the
scientific research field does
not appear to value proper
recognition in a way that Mark
feels will rightfully acknowledge
TRANSCRIPT NUMBER:
his contribution, it is best for
Mark to stay true to himself and
only engage in opportunities
where he would either receive
credit or share data to the
extent he would not mind being
unrecognized for his efforts.
F. Relationships & Role Models
Does not address
Acknowledges horizontal
and vertical relationships
have an impact on
decision-making
Mark’s decision on whether
or not to continue sharing
data is impacted by the
actions of those in authority.
G. Reflectiveness
Does not address
Acknowledges
individual’s decision
making will have an
impact on his / her
sense of personal and
professional identity
The decision that Mark
makes concerning how he
shares data in the future
can impact how Mark views
his role in the scientific
research community and
the kinds of incentives that
Awareness of power
differences between
senior and junior persons
and the difficulty of
navigating this power
differential when opinions
conflict
Mark has difficulty in acting
upon the set individual
values he has (of ensuring
that he is recognized for his
work) because acting on
these values would mean
getting into a conflict with
senior members of his field
who have the power to ruin
his career and make sure he
does not have access to
certain opportunities in the
future.
Discusses potential
consequences
individual’s decision
making will have on his /
her sense of personal and
profession identity
Because Mark decided to be
selective about withholding
or distributing limited data,
he not only will become more
guarded in the way he
interacts with other members
of his profession, but he may
also not be as active a
Discusses consequences of
positive or negative
relationship / role model;
discusses ways in which an
individual can negotiate
conflicting opinions in
relation to his/her own
ethical standards.
Mark’s mentor served as a
positive role model in this
situation, and helped him to
navigate a difficult situation by
explaining why it would not be
good for him to write a letter of
complaint and how,
unfortunately, politics
dominates the field of science.
With this new understanding
that Mark’s mentor provided,
Mark now knows why refraining
from writing a letter of
complaint could actually protect
and promote his professional
reputation, just as he wanted –
such as by not upsetting
senior member of his
profession and possibly
ensuring he can get a letter of
recommendation from this
senior member.
Proposes a strategy for
how one might negotiate
the dilemma in a way that
preserves sense of
personal and professional
identity (eg references idea
of mirror test)
One way in which Mark could
continue to share knowledge
while preventing others from
taking credit for his work is by
only presenting his data on the
DIAMOND-EDGED THINKING
TRANSCRIPT NUMBER:
H. Awareness of GW Diamond as
distinct operational realms within
an area of work that can have
differing and conflicting sets of
values:
Does not address
motivate Mark to pursue his
work.
participant in sharing
knowledge (and possibly
limiting his opportunities to
be recognized for his work).
condition that he be given
credit. If an organization or
individual can guarantee that
they will give Mark credit, Mark
could feel more comfortable
about sharing his work with
others.
Lists and describes at
least 2 areas of
alignment or
misalignment in values
from following
categories:
Lists and describes at
least 3 areas of alignment
or misalignment in values
from following categories:
Lists and describes all 4
areas of alignment or
misalignment in values from
following categories
Individual values
Domain values
Priorities of field
Messages from society
Individual values
Domain values
Priorities of field
Messages from society
Individual values
Domain values
Priorities of field
Messages from society
While Mark places value on
being recognized in his
field, the organization
preferred to preserve their
own reputation versus
recognizing the work of
Mark.
The field of science is
supposed to place emphasis
on helping humanity, and it
was Mark’s intention by
sharing his data that he
would ultimately help
humanity by ensuring that
the organization was not
providing inaccurate data.
Science may be considered a
noble field for the “problemsolvers” of the world, but within
Mark’s professional circle,
playing politics and protecting
one’s own reputation – whether
for an individual or organization
– takes priority over fulfilling
any notions of nobility society
may have of the scientific
research field.