You are here

What you need to know...

22 July, 2019 - 10:09
Available under Creative Commons-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/05c97be4-3ad0-47f2-b5a7-a75d0ad90ab7@3.72

Michael Davis in Ethics and the University (1999) Routledge: 143-174 provides a comprehensive discussion of how the field of practical and professional ethics employs the case study method of teaching.

  • He discusses how law schools began to use discussion of legal decisions (law cases) to teach the law.
  • Professors presented these cases using the "Socratic Method" or what has also been termed as "testing to destruction." Aggressive questioning is used to get students accustomed to the pressures of making a legal argument in an adversarial context in court. The Socratic Method has never been successfully used in teaching business because questions are not used by managers as weapons in a legal context but as means for gathering the information necessary for making informed decisions.
  • Davis also discusses how the Harvard Business School adopted the legal model of teaching by case discussion but quickly changed this methodology to reflect better the underlying dynamics of the business situation.
  • Philosophers have also used cases to clarify, rhetorically support, or advance a position in a philosophical controversy. Deciding whether to keep the promise you made to the village chief (on his deathbed) to use his inheritance to build a statute of him or to buy the village children much needed shoes helps to point out ethical conflicts and to advance a theory as a more effective way of addressing these conflicts. The dilemma that Jim in the Jungle faces (made famous by Bernard Williams) that is portrayed in the Mountain Terrorist module also provides an example of this kind of puzzle case.
  • Ethics cases began to emerge when physicians brought practical and difficult decisions raising ethical issues to philosophical ethicists for discussion and counsel. These case have also undergone different transformations as they have been used to promote learning and discussion in the different areas of practical and professional ethics.

This quote from Donaldson and Gini also provides insight into how the case study method was first imported into business teaching.

What is known today as the case study method began at Harvard University in 1908 with the opening of the new business school. The business school's first catalog stated that the "problem method" would be utilized "as far as practicable." After years of struggle and experimentation, the case method reached maturity at Harvard from 1919 to 1942 under the encouragement of the deal of the business school, Wallace Donham. It was during these years that the method became the trademark of the Harvard Business School, a position it retains to this day. (Thomas Donaldson and Al Gini, Case Studies in Business, 4th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996: 12.)

Michael Davis in Ethics and the University also provides an excellent case taxonomy. Below are the sixteen distinctions he uses to classify cases. It is best to think of this taxonomy, not as a static matrix within which we slot a case, but as a set of specifications and constraints we can use to design or modify cases to ft our needs and purposes.

  1. Long (and very long) v. short (and very short)
  2. Documents (or pseudo-documents) v. summary
  3. Single perspective v. several perspectives
  4. Narrative v. dialogue
  5. Pure fact v. descriptive commentary
  6. Realistic (hypothetical) v. real (actual)
  7. Stories v. problems
  8. You (agent) v. they (judge)
  9. Would v. should
  10. Top v. bottom
  11. Success (the positive) v. failure (the negative)
  12. Single issue (poor) v. multi-issue (rich)
  13. Single stage v. multi-stage
  14. Ordinary v. technical language
  15. Personal v. policy
  16. Living v. frozen

Case Taxonomy (Taken from Huff and Frey)

  • Thick vs. Thin Cases: Thin cases are useful for abstracting a single point and focusing work on that point. Thick cases can give the student practice in making ethical decisions in the full context of the messy real world.
  • Historical vs. Hypothetical: Historical cases are based on actual experience in the field. The Therac-25, Ford Pinto, Hughes Aircraft, and Machado cases are all historical. these provide the sort of excitement and immediate relevance that help students to recognize the importance of ethical enquiry. On the other hand, cases that are hypothetical, fictional, or abstract remove much of the impact of the historical case, though they allow the case writer the freedom to structure, abstract and focus the discussion on precisely the issues of concern. Harvard Business cases are generally thick and historical. Useful—in fact excellent—for in-depth study, they present difficulties for those interested in directing shorter activities.
  • Good vs. Bad News cases: The tendency in ethics cases is to have only bad news cases in which some bad outcome occurs because of poor choices. These cautionary tales do grab students' imaginations but the asymmetrical emphasis on bad news gives the impression that good—or even decent—action is impossible, rare, and heroic. Bad news cases should be balanced with cases of morally exemplary scientists and engineers as well as with good choices toward good outcomes made by ordinary scientists and engineers.
  • Big vs. Small News Cases: Bad news cases are frequently big news cases; bad news is more sensational and often more newsworthy. Bad news cases are also rare events which make them big news. But these cases frequently present students with a spectacle which, while interesting, precludes involvement. On the other hand, small news cases are about the everyday decisions that scientists and engineers make in the way they handle reporting, data collection , process management, personnel and other day-to-day issues. So big news cases are more sensational and exciting; little news cases are more appropriate to the day-to-day ethical situations that students are likely to face.
  • From Huff, C. W. and Frey, W. (2005) "Moral pedagogy and practical ethics" Science and Engineering Ethics Vol. 11, 1-20.)

The following table compares and contrasts participant vs. evaluator cases. In general, the difference comes down to this: participant cases are excellent for practicing decision-making while evaluator cases do an excellent job of teaching students how to apply ethical theory.

Table 6.6 Participant vs. Evaluator Cases

Participant

Evaluator

Student takes on the role of one of the participants and makes a decision from that perspective

Student takes up a standpoint from outside the case and evaluates the participants and their deeds.

Helps students to practice integrating ethical considerations into designing and implementing solutions to real world problems.

Useful for introducing and practicing different ethical principles and concepts

Allows students to practice making decision under real world constraints such as lack of knowledge and lack of time.

Useful for introducing and practicing different ethical principles and concepts.