{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02403846153846154, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.95, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Case Material in an Ethics Workshop: a Reply To Patrick Maclagan

to in his article, I would like to illuminate the counter argument. As Maclagan acknowledges, the material was selected inter alia for its ’shock effect’ though perhaps more correctly the issues were ’writ large’ so that they could not be missed. There is the risk with relatively trivial issues that the ethical dimension may go unrecognised, and the problem subsumed under a more general Organisational Behaviour rubric, and thus valuable and limited learning time is lost. However, this would hardly be a justification if, by using such cases, the educative points being made were lost in a fog of confusion and irrelevance. Accordingly, I would argue from two perspectives, one epistemological the other pedagogic, that relevance is not lost by using such cases.