Throughout this course, you will be asked to work with various worksheets, which I refer to here as matrices. The reason for calling these worksheets "matrices" is derived from the social sciences, where matrices are used throughout various disciplines to organize the collection and evaluation of qualitative data. We take this very same kind of approach here, with the matrices I have designed, for qualitatively identifying and evaluating across a wide variety of ethical issues.
Rule Zero: DON'T PANIC [1]
First rule in using the matrices: You should not stick to the one sheet of paper. These matrices are conceptual frameworks, and I do not expect that you would be able to fit all the necessary detail in just the rows and columns of the pdf. Also, do not fill these out by hand and then scan and turn them in... this makes it very difficult for me read and to grade and give back comments. The best thing is to move your responses to a text file where you basically work through the columns and rows in a linear flowing manner, down the page. Just be sure to identify which of the sections you are responding to with a header for that section.
Second rule: Not all categories may be applicable to the case you are evaluating. Think carefully about it, but if it does not seem applicable, either indicate as such or just don't include that sub-category. However, and this is the tricky part, the specific topic/sub-category may not currently seem to be an issue; however, could it become an issue in the future if certain actions or consequences are not taken into consideration? This is the "anticipatory" aspect of ethical analyses which takes time to develop.
Third rule: Just because something does not seem to be an ethical issue since it has not been addressed does not mean it should not be considered. For example, just because a project does not address the needs and considerations of under-represented groups does not mean that it shouldn't address those needs. This is what I refer to as an "ethical deficit" or "ethical gap," where the lack of addressing an ethical need does not mean that there is no ethical issue there. Again, this is another example of trying to anticipate where ethical issues may go unrecognized.
Fourth rule: Always always always explain your reasoning. Remember the old "what, who, why, where, when and how?" rule of problem solving? Well, that should be a basic assumption in all your writing for this course, and others. For example, in the stakeholder matrix, just listing a person or group is not enough for anyone to go on... you need to explain what they have at stake and why.
Final rule: Do your best to think through these and apply the concepts. The reason why we go through a variety of these exercises is to improve your practice and familiarity with the various categories encountered in each of the matrices. I build room for improving your learning and do not expect perfection on the first attempts.
Choose a topic or use the one assigned to you, depending on the assignment. Begin to orient your topic in relation to the columns on the worksheet.
Stage 1: Identify and clarify initial conditions for analysis. Provide as much clarity to the description of the topics as possible. This is crucial. You need to define your case/topic clearly and in depth. A title alone will not suffice. Expect to write a paragraph describing. Remember the "who, what, where, when, why and how," in your description.
Stage 2: Review the three top-level categories on the course website, and remember they are inclusive, i.e., one issue can be in multiple categories
Stage 3: Begin with notes or quick phrases to fill the columns out. Make notes as needed and be able to describe further what the tags mean in context. Try to identify at least three issues per column. Provide a sentence or two describing each topic. Hint: you are looking for topics or issues that would make a difference if it were not done well or if it were done some other way, e.g., would your prefer surgery without anesthetics?
Stage 4: Then, rank the topics you identified in Stage 3 in order of importance, where importance can be either ethically "better or worse," it just indicates that it needs to be addressed and is of a high priority. Provide a brief summary (a few sentences) as to why you ranked them this way.
Q. So here what analysis we are talking about? Do you want us to pick a topic? Can you please give me examples of topics that can be picked? e.g., Topic can be “renewable energy over Fossil fuel”?
A: The topic of analysis depends on the assignment for that lesson. For the first assignment, I want you to begin thinking about a topic you would like to cover for your final project. You don't have to commit to what you decide upon now, but try to pick a case that you yourself would find useful to study more in-depth. Consider something you could either use and apply in your current work or a topic that you would like to add to your portfolio. If you are a solar, wind, or biofuels person, I suggest choosing something in that arena which you would like to learn more about. Try to avoid broad and sweeping topics, such as renewable energy over fossil fuels, and narrow your topic down as specifically as possible. The more specific you are, the easier it is to do the analysis because you are working with specifics. For example, we will later look at the ethical issues surrounding biofuels, and why some biofuels are much more ethical than others. So, it would be much better to do a comparison between, say first-generation biofuels and third generation biofuels, or the ethical issues of corn ethanol.
Q: So for Stage 3, do you want us to fill space under the Categories (I. Prof and Research integrity, II Broader Social and Enviro Impact, III Embedded Ethics) for the selected topic?
A: Yes, that is the goal. The first pass is to just sketch out the topics, like brainstorming, and the second pass is to add description and reasoning as to why those topics.
Q: Please clarify Stage 4, “Rank in order of importance”? Should the ranking be based on positive impact or negative impact?
A: Positive and negative impacts can very much depend on who you ask (we'll see this much more in terms of stakeholders.) Your ranking should really be based on the overall magnitude of the impacts, as opposed to whether or not they are positive or negative.