Metoodiline vahend väärtusselituse arendamiseks
Date
2012
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Tartu Ülikool
Abstract
The title of this bachelor’s thesis is „A method for developing value clarification“. The aim is,
as the title says, to create a method that is suitable for developing value clarification. Value
clarification consists of considering different values and reflecting personal preferences. The
result of value clarification should be a better understanding of one’s own personal values.
The method is based on a similar method developed by Henry Abramovitch (2007).
Abramovitch’s method was used to prepare psychologists for possible ethical conflicts and to
simulate their ethical awareness. The same principles are carried over to this method. At the
core of the current method are cases of ethical dilemmas.
Secondly the method takes after Sandra Borden’s research (2007) on ethical arguments in
journalism. She used groups of journalists to study their ethical arguments. The groups were
meant to encourage lively discussions on ethical topics. Similarly the current method in this
thesis has been developed for small groups with the aim of encouraging discussions.
A bachelor’s thesis by Kaidi Kasenõmm (2011) lined out that value preferences of
experienced journalists were mainly individual and subjective. An earlier study, Maili
Kangur’s master’s thesis (2009) proposed that editorials should discuss ethical topics and
values more often with the aim of developing common understandings in ethical questions.
Thus, thirdly, the aim of the current method has been to improve the common ground of
ethical knowledge and preferences in journalistic editorials. For these reasons the method is
meant to be dynamic and easily useable by anyone who is interested in it.
By following these aims a method was developed. It consists of cases of ethical dilemmas that
are meant to be discussed and solved in journalistic groups, preferably by smaller editorials.
To encourage discussion, each case has a set of given solutions among which the group has to
choose one that suits them all. An alternative is to solve the cases using open questions. One
way or the other, the aim is a lively discussion and thinking about one’s own values.
Two sample sessions were carried out to test the cases and the method. One test was with
students and the other in a journalistic editorial. Both tests showed good signs. The
participants from editorial also gave positive feedback. Discussions were lively, few of the
participants defined some of their personal values and they valued the new things they learned
about their co-workers.
Although one test is surely not enough to make any definite conclusions it would be still safe
to presume that the method developed is likely to work. It easily fulfilled its main aim of
being interactive and useful. More over it seemed to be enjoyable.
From these test sessions I conclude that the developed method fulfills its aims in most parts
and that it could be a valuable tool of value clarification. It could be used as an alternative
activity during brakes or as an independent part of a training program.