Factsheet Applied Ethics

FACTSHEET

MASTER’S PROGRAMME APPLIED ETHICS

Welcome!

Dear student,

Welcome to our Master programme in Applied Ethics at Utrecht University! We are proud to have students from different disciplines and different countries who choose to study in the Master Applied Ethics and pursue their ambitions here. We are looking forward to meeting you during the introduction days in September 2023 and to helping you build a career from this Master programme. We are eager to assist you in your search for knowledge and to help you build a bridge towards practice.

In this booklet we have collected useful information that will help you to prepare your arrival in Utrecht and to find your way during your first weeks at Utrecht University as well as throughout the academic year. Navigate through the pages and read about starting dates, the programme and courses, student community, the staff and much more. Consider this as a supplement to the student’s website (students.uu.nl/en/hum/applied-ethics), which contains all the information described here and more. Where necessary, this booklet will refer to the relevant webpage for additional information.

The Master Applied Ethics (MAE) is one of the few Applied Ethics Master programmes offered in Europe. It is embedded in a research-driven institute, the Ethics Institute. The staff members of the Ethics Institute teach the courses and are also involved in the supervision of your internship, research project and thesis. Apart from the staff, your fellow students will be very important during the new academic year. Each year students create a new Facebook group which helps to keep you updated on events, social activities, and the like. A strong student community and a committed staff will certainly contribute to fulfilling your future career ambitions and will help you to enjoy your Master studies.

On behalf of the staff of the Ethics Institute, I wish you a good academic year!

Jos Philips Programme coordinator MAE

TAKE A LOOK AT OUR WEBSITE TAKE A LOOK AT OUR WEBSITE

D R . J OS P HILIPS

GETTING STARTED

All the information to get started with your studies at the University of Utrecht is on this website More practical information you find at the end of this factsheet. This is a checklist for the most important first steps to get started:

✓ Did you receive your Solis ID and password?

✓ Do you have access to Blackboard?

✓ Did you register in Osiris for the courses in block 1 (see overview courses below)? If not, contact the Student Information Desk Humanities (contact information at the end of this factsheet)

✓ Have you received an invitation for the Introduction meetings in September? If not, contact the Student Information Desk Humanities (contact information at the end of this factsheet)

E-MAIL LIST

As a student in the programme, we will frequently contact you via the so-called student e-mail list. The coordinator of the programme, together with the teaching staff have access to this mailing list and will send you important information regarding the programme, events, job opportunities or internship options via this mailing list. If you are registered in the programme, you will automatically be subscribed to the mailing list. The mail address is studethics@phil.uu.nl Please make sure to check you UU mail-address regularly!

KEY CONTACTS Programme Coordinator

For questions concerning the content and planning of the master’s programme, you can contact the programme coordinator, Jos Philips. If you have questions specifically relating to a particular course, first consult the teacher concerned before consulting the coordinator. ■

DR . J OS P HILIPS

Janskerkhof 13, room 1.04, 3512 BL Utrecht

j.p.m.philips@uu.nl

Walk-in hours: on appointment via email

Tutors

Each of you will be assigned a tutor. This will be done during the introduction session. Your tutor is your first contact for questions regarding the curriculum, personal development, internships etc. They will assist you in developing a personal profile, substantively and skills-wise, in applied ethics from the very beginning of the master’s programme. They are also there to help you think about your career plans and - development. Any formal questions (about exam regulations etc.) should be addressed to the programme coordinator.

DO YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE?

Curriculum Committee

The Curriculum Committee consists of students and staff members who jointly discuss and assess the quality of the education in the master’s programme. Every year, the committee is looking for new student members. If you are interested in becoming a member, or if you want to contact the committee about some matter concerning the master’s programme, please contact the coordinator.

CORE TEAM OF LECTURERS

Coordinator of the MA Programme Applied Ethics and assistant professor at the Ethics Institute His research focuses on global justice (esp. human rights, poverty, ethics concerning refugees) and sustainability

Professor of philosophy at the Ethics Institute. His research focus lies at the intersection of moral psychology, critical social theory, ethics, philosophical anthropology, and political philosophy, with a particular emphasis on how appropriate technology and social institutions can enable as well as threaten autonomous agency.

Secretary-director of the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), an independent advisory body for government policy. His professorship focuses on the ethics of science and policy in science based strategic policy advice.

Professor of ethics and political philosophy at the Ethics Institute and its Director. His research centers on three main themes: 1. socio-economic justice, 2. economic and ethical theories about the concept of the market, the justifications for regulating and limiting markets, and applying market mechanisms in the public sector, 3. conceptions of freedom, autonomy, and paternalism; and liberalism as a political theory that helps us think about the limits of state interventions in private life.

Assistant professor at the Ethics Institute, specializing in bioethics and the ethics of technology. She’s particularly interested in personal autonomy, personal identity, and, lately, COVID-19 and public policy.

Franck L.B.

studied theology and ethics at the Universities of Utrecht (NL) and Aberdeen (UK). He is a full professor affiliated to the Ethics Institute and the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Utrecht University and Head of the Centre for Sustainable Animal Stewardship.

■ ■ ■

D R J OS P HILIPS

■ ■ ■

P ROF D R R UTGER C LAASSEN

■ ■ ■

P ROF D R J OEL A NDERSON

■ ■ ■

D R . L UCY W HITE

■ ■ ■

P ROF D R F RANS W.A. B ROM

■ ■ ■

P ROF D R . F RANCK M EIJBOOM

Meijboom

Ingrid Robeyns holds the chair in Ethics of Institutions. Her research has been on the capability approach, social justice, desirable institutional change and visions for the future. Recently, she has been working on the synthesis of the Fair Limits Project, which examines the distributive rule that there should be upper limits to how many resources it is morally permissible to have. In addition, she is involved in other research projects, such as the Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies (ESDiT).

Hanno Sauer is an associate professor of practical philosophy at the Ethics Institute. His main research interests are in metaethics and moral psychology. He has worked on, among other things, the psychological foundations of moral judgment and reasoning, debunking arguments in ethics, and moral progress, and he published several books on these themes.

Tutor and assistant professor at the Ethics Institute, teaching a variety of topics ranging from ethics and political philosophy to philosophy of science and the history of philosophy.

Her current research mostly deals with moral psychology, virtue ethics and climate ethics. Naomi is also the Managing Director of the Ethics Institute.

Assistant professor in the Ethics Institute. She is interested in a wide range of questions in normative ethics, social and political philosophy, and moral psychology. At the moment, her research focuses on issues in the ethics of mind, moral equality and partiality, personal relationships, and moral emotions such as gratitude, resentment and agent-regret.

Assistant Professor at the Ethics Institute at Utrecht University and an honorary associate professor at the Steve Biko Centre for Bioethics at Wits University in South Africa. Much of his research focuses on the ethical implications of ageing and life extension. He also works on the ethics of technology.

Marcel Verweij, Professor of Ethics, has a specific interest in the interaction between normative theory and judgements on practical moral problems and public policy. His work focuses on ethics in public health. Marcel has fulfilled various advisory roles; currently he is member of the committee that advises on the basic health insurance package in the Netherlands.

■ ■ ■

P ROF D R I NGRID R OBEYNS

■ ■ ■

D R R OMY E SKENS

■ ■ ■

D R , H ANNO S AUER

■ ■ ■

D R . C HRIS W AREHAM

■ ■ ■

D R . N OAMI VAN S TEENBERGEN

■ ■ ■

P ROF D R M ARCEL V ERWEIJ

Assistant Professor at the ethics institute. His core research interests are in the ethics of technology and climate ethics. He has subsidiary research interests in evolutionary ethics, animal ethics, metaethics, and Buddhism. He also has an interest in public philosophy and is the current outreach coordinator of the Ethics Institute.

Jamie Draper joined the Ethics Institute as an Assistant Professor in 2023. Previously, he was a Postdoctoral Prize Research Fellow in Politics at Nuffield College, University of Oxford. His research focuses on applied issues in political philosophy including climate change, migration, and urban politics.

STUDY ADVISOR

Facing issues with your studies? The study advisors are there to help and support you to successfully complete your degree. They can act as confidential counsellors, advise on issues regarding illness and special circumstances and, together with you, look at the possibilities to cope with the studies while dealing with disabilities or chronic illnesses. They can also help with specific arrangements and procedures, such as complaints, objections, and appeals. You can find more information on the university website, at: https://students.uu.nl/en/hum/applied-ethics/contact/study-advisor

THISPROGRAMME

The Applied Ethics Master’s programme offers an in-depth focus on the interaction between real-world problems and theory from philosophical ethics and political philosophy. The strong interdependence between theory and practice is a core aspect of the programme. After completing the programme students will have been trained in applying ethical and political-philosophical knowledge to social problems. Students will have a thorough knowledge of theories in moral and political philosophy, and they will be familiar with important methods and debates in applied ethics, and aware of the implications of legal and political frameworks for ethical argumentation. Students will learn to propose and criticize possible approaches and to engage with professionals from different disciplines, and other people concerned, to reflect on the moral dimensions of their practices.

On the student website you will find more information about your programme, ranging from an overview of courses to policies and procedures. You find it here: https://students.uu.nl/en/hum/appliedethics/curriculum

During the first semester the focus is on dominant theoretical positions, their link with important pressing ethical and societal issues, the required research attitude, and methods and tools in the field of applied ethics. From week one onwards, a strong sense of community among students is fostered by group assignments and - activities. At the end of the first semester, you have prepared a design for the thesis and internship for the second semester. You continue to develop your academic skills in an internship and thesis in the second semester, which is characterized by an increasing independence in translating theoretical knowledge and insights into practice. Internships, practical assignments, and lecture seminars help you to acquire job experience and to build a relevant network, which serves as a foundation for professional employment. For more information, see: https://students.uu.nl/en/hum/applied-ethics/practicalinformation/schedules-calendar-time-slots

PROGRAMME OUTLINE

* Required courses. As for Ethics and Public Policy, it is the default course, which may in exceptional cases be replaced by Topics in Social and Political Philosophy (a Research Master course, see below). Consult your tutor.

** See below (‘Electives’) for the possibilities. If you want to take a Research Master Philosophy course (RM course), you need to have sufficient philosophical background and you will also have to get the approval of the programme coordinator of the Research Master Philosophy (Mauro Bonazzi) and of the coordinator of the Master Applied Ethics (which will not be given for all RM courses), and sometimes the Examination Board.

*** Subject to the approval of the Examination Board

Possible part-time programme 60 EC: 2023-2025

(Other options can be discussed with your tutor.)

Y EAR 1 (30 OR 35 EC)

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 and 4

- Ethics of Institutions (5 EC)

- Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

- One elective Medical Ethics/ Economic Ethics/ Sustainable World (5 EC)

- [Possibly also: Methods and Tools (5 EC)]

Y EAR 2 (30 OR 25 EC)

- Internship (15 EC) or

- Tutorial (5 EC) -

- Second tutorial/RMA course/literature module (5 + 5 EC)

Block 1 and 2 Block 3 and 4

- Ethic and Public Policy (block 1, 5 EC)

- If not yet completed: Methods and Tools (block 2, 5 EC)

- Possibly: elective (block 2, 5 EC)

COURSES

Ethics of Institutions (EoI)

- Thesis (15 EC)

This course offers a graduate-level introduction to the ethics of institutions. It equips you to ethically analyze formal and informal institutions and provides you with knowledge of the relevant theories and concepts. The course also helps develop your own normative position in the landscape of ethical theories and strengthen your critical understanding of a position you may already endorse. It covers several core public values, such as distributive justice and autonomy, that we often use when evaluating an institution, as well as several issues that are highly relevant in the ethics of (international) institutions, such as the conflict between autonomy and paternalism or postcolonial responses to notions of global distributive justice. The course will further enable you to apply these ethical theories to practical issues.

Ethical Theory & Moral Practice (ETMP)

Should we honor advance euthanasia directives for patients with late-stage dementia? Is it right to programme self-driving vehicles to safeguard the passengers above any other being? Do historical harms of enslavement justify reparations for descendants? Can certain boundaries be respectfully transgressed in flirting? Do businesses have a responsibility to future generations?

These are just some examples of moral problems, difficult real-life questions that typically do not have ‘easy answers’, but are rather open to on-going debate between various views. In this course, we aim to identify and understand a number of prominent philosophical approaches that are meant to aid us in dealing with such moral problems. Additionally, we will assess in what ways such philosophical tools are beneficial or not by discussing practical applications of them. In doing so, we also become acquainted with a range of moral problems that we employ as test-cases for the different moral philosophical approaches.

We consider the use of important normative ethical theories, such as conventionalist utilitarianism, rightsbased deontology, and rule-based virtue ethics. And we study methodologies that have been tailored for practical ethics, such as mid-level principles, casuistry, and empirical ethics. Alongside these main theories, we discuss other important related concepts and views, such as moral pluralism, feminist ethics, stand-point theory, agency, basic values, epistemic injustice, value incommensurability, and justified rational choice.

Ethics & Public Policy (EPP)

In this course, you will examine different topics involving ethical issues in the context of policymaking in a democratic society, or at least in political systems where policy choices are seen as a form of collective

decision making in relation to the common good. To this purpose, we will analyse the relation between legitimacy, individual liberty and public goods. This in turn will cause us to examine questions such as:

What defines public policy, who develops public policy and in what way is it related to the institutions of politics and representation?

What are legitimate grounds for public policy and thus for state intervention? What is the normative structure of public policy and how (where) do ethics and ethical judgement play a role?

What is the role of individual autonomy? How is respect for autonomy related to the de facto capacity of citizens for rational choice serving their self-interest? Is government in a position to know better (or to act on this without ulterior motives)? Where is the dividing line between the fundamental rights of the individual and those of his neighbours (and thus of society)?

What is the philosophical basis of public policy? What is the role of scientific advice in making policy decisions? How can we open up policy making to strategic and future-oriented thinking?

What is the specific political entity whose interests should be served by this; is this defined regionally, nationally or even on a global scale? In what cases, and why?

What is the importance of context? What happens when a societal issue is translated into a policy problem? And when a policy problem is translated into a factual or normative question? Or vice versa, when a factual or normative claim is translated into a policy advice? Or when policy tries to solve a societal issue?

Methods & Tools in Practical Philosophy (MTPP)

This course is a follow-up to the theoretical courses of period 1. In Methods & Tools, you will start putting your knowledge into practice and use the theoretical background and insights acquired in period 1 to reflect on the relation between theoretical approaches and working in practice. The course will centrally revolve around stakeholder assignments. You will work on these assignments in small groups throughout the course. The stakeholder assignments will culminate in a presentation and a report. This group project is not only an exercise in how to put ethical knowledge into practice, but also an exercise in professional skills. Apart from the group project, students write an essay in which they reflect on how engaged philosophy should be or write a paper in which they do theoretical groundwork for the work done in the stakeholder project.

Electives MAE

You can choose which of the MAE electives you would like to follow. A minimum of one of the following three MAE electives is required.

1. M EDICAL E THICS & P HILOSOPHY OF M EDICINE (ME&MP)

Medical ethics hardly needs to be introduced: it is one of the oldest branches of applied ethics. Since the 1960s and 70s the practice of medicine is continually facing new ethical challenges due to new technologies and research experiments. In this course we will focus on ethical challenges raised by recent developments: technological developments (e.g. artificial wombs and brain stimulation technologies), the COVID-19 pandemic, and artificial intelligence. In discussing these issues, we will also adopt the more abstract perspective of the philosophy of medicine: theoretical reflection on the basic concepts used in medical ethics and other reasoning about health and human life.

2. E CONOMIC E THICS (EE)

Economics and ethics are closely intertwined. During this course, we will explore several of the main places in which ethics and economics meet, drawing out the normative dimensions of economic debates, contrasting the ways in which economists and ethicists approach various questions, and exploring what ethics can tell us about economics, and what economics can tell us about ethics. We will begin by exploring the normative foundations of the market economy, and contrasting economic and ethical approaches to distributive justice. We will examine various normative approaches to the appropriate role and responsibilities of corporations. We will examine the virtues and limits of markets as a distributive mechanism, interrogating where market mechanisms function well, and where an alternative mechanism might better serve various normative aims. We will critically appraise the notion of “rational choice theory” in economics, investigating what it might be able to contribute to ethical and policy debates, questioning its empirical foundations, and examining what role institutions may legitimately play in shaping human behaviour. Finally, we will examine “cost-benefit analysis” as a public policy tool, critically appraising how it captures and expresses value.

3. S USTAINABLE W ORLD : H UMANS , A NIMALS AND N ATURE (SW)

The notion that one should strive for a sustainable world seems widespread. Nonetheless, making this ambition operational appears to be rather complicated in practice, and implies many normative decisions. For instance, the need to address climate change-related problems is widely acknowledged. But how to address this need while simultaneously guaranteeing energy security in the Global North, industrial development in the Global South, and food security on a planet that is likely to exceed a population of 8 billion people, by the end of this course? Furthermore, questions of climate justice often have an anthropocentric focus, but is this focus justified? What is the role of non-human animals in a sustainable world? This course discusses core questions in the debate on sustainability and deals with their normative background. The course approaches sustainability as a normative issue that has direct implications on our dealing with humans, animals, and nature. It touches open concepts and approaches from animal ethics, environmental ethics, and climate ethics, and discusses principles of justice, welfare, problems of uncertainty, the role of technology, moral psychology, and institutional questions that arise in the context of sustainability.

TUTORIALS MAE, LITERATURE MODULE:

In block 3 and 4 each, a tutorial will be offered, intended primarily for part-time students and students who do not take an internship. These small-group tutorials will have about 5 meetings. The programme coordinator will provide you with more information about them, incl. their topics, in the course of the first semester.

In addition, it will in some cases be possible to take an individual literature module on a topic that fits exactly with the research of a staff member, subject to the staff member’s availability, and provided that there is no course offered on this topic.

E LECTIVE COURSES BEYOND THE MAE PROGRAMME

For those of you who like to do some more philosophy courses, it is possible (if you have sufficient background knowledge) to participate in Research Master Philosophy courses. You can choose the following courses:

often: Topics in the Ethics of Technology, Digital Ethics, Institutions Think Tank (block 3); in certain cases: Topics in Social and Political Philosophy, Topics in Ethical Theory, History and Philosophy of Objectivity

In order to participate, please contact the coordinator of the Research Master Philosophy (Mauro Bonazzi) before the course starts, as well as the programme coordinator of the MAE. Sometimes, approval of the Examination Board will also be needed.

C OURSES AT A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT OF THE UU OR A DIFFERENT U NIVERSITY

In case you would like to take courses at another department of UU or another University, you need the approval of the Board of Examiners as well as the approval of the coordinator of the MAE programme.

Internship

Students are strongly encouraged to take an internship in the programme in order to a) explore future career options and gain valuable work experience, b) improve and demonstrate meaningful application of their knowledge and skills in applied ethics in practice, and c) develop a professional network of future employment.

An information session about choosing an internship will be held in September to help you make a quick start in the MA programme. Our experience is that you need to start looking for an internship in September/October in order to be able to have suitable place in February.

The internship can be a ‘traditional’ internship at an organization outside the academy or a researchoriented internship. The internship counts for 15 EC. At the start of the internship students must develop an internship plan and fill in the contract. The internship will be completed by submitting an internship - and reflection report.

Content of the internship

The internship is focused on a relevant ethical and/or societal issue, requires you to function on an academic level and challenges you to use your skills and knowledge as a trained applied ethicist. Many types of internships are possible: at a ministry, working for a CSR department in a company, working for an NGO etc. So, options are plenty. That is why you need to consult the supervising staff before you actually take an internship. For us, the relation to your future plans is relevant too: if you aim to get a job at the ministry, you might want to get an internship there; if you want to pursue an academic career, internships that focus on research are much more relevant etc. Not all internships are acceptable within an MA Applied Ethics programme. You therefore need to contact your tutor with your plans. Staff will check whether your plans and internship match with the contents of the MAE programme, with your ambitions, and whether they fit within the time schedule.

Procedural

If you desire to take an internship you can discuss this with your tutor. They will help you define the purpose and nature of the internship and help you explore for which organizations you would like to work. The internship officer, Bart Mijland, and Career Services (for more information see links below) can also help you determine what type of work you might be interested in, what your strengths and weaknesses are and help you write your résumé and to prepare for an internship interview. Notice that it is the responsibility of the student to find a suitable organization for an internship, also when it concerns a research-oriented internship at a research institute, including the Ethics Institute. We consider it part of your academic skills to show initiative and autonomy. Staff can help introduce you in a network of people, but we consider it as an academic quality to find your own way in the application procedures. An advantage of this is also that you are allowed to find a tailor-made match as an internship.

In the past, students have found various internships: in financial organizations such as banks, at the Red Cross, with political parties (think-tanks), with advisory boards like the Centre for Ethics and Health, ministries, the WHO, The Dutch embassy in London, academic medical centers, the Ethics Institute (several research projects), the Green Office of Utrecht University, KPMG, to mention a few.

Note that you are not allowed to make arrangements regarding formalities of your internship without the approval of the internship coordinator and your tutor at the MA programme. It is necessary to discuss the content of the internship with them before you finally agree to take the internship. This is to prevent you from choosing internships that are not challenging enough or with organizations which are not a reliable partner for UU. You might end up with no credits for your study and a failed internship. Therefore, ask permission before you start.

A number of formal documents need to be filled in before your internship can start:

1. Fill in a formal agreement for the internship. You can find the forms at the website of the programme: https://students.uu.nl/en/hum/applied-ethics/career-services/explore-your-options-forthe-future/internships

2. Prepare a work plan for your internship: what are you going to do, what tasks, what products are expected and what supervision can you expect as intern? This is often formulated together with the internship organization. See the students.uu.nl website.

3. As part of the work plan, we ask you to make clear what your ambitions/learning aims are for the internship. What do you hope to learn (both regarding content, procedure, experience), and what insights and skills do you hope to acquire and develop? We want you to reflect on these ambitions in a reflection report when the internship has finished.

4. You write minutes (or keep a diary) each week during the internship to help you reflect at the end of your internship. These minutes (‘log’) are private and do not have to be submitted.

For more elaborate guidance on the internship formalities see https://students.uu.nl/en/hum/appliedethics/curriculum/internships

Once you have handed in the internship contract at the Student Information Desk you will be enrolled for the internship, this does not happen through Osiris!

Each internship, no matter how long it lasts, will be credited with 15 EC. This is a minimum threshold: no

internships below 15 EC are usually allowed; if the internship takes longer (requirement of the organization) it is up to the student to decide whether this is worth the effort (e.g. considering your career perspectives). We advise you to think carefully before you accept internships that take longer, as it will certainly lead to a delay in your studies. In general, the internship takes place in period 3.

Supervisor of the internship: Your supervisor will generally be someone different than your tutor. The supervisor will discuss your work plan and learning aims with you and might make a site visit during or at the end of your internship.

Research-oriented internships

A number of research-oriented internship supervisors is available within the institute. We also have contacts with other research institutes in the Netherlands and abroad. In the past, students have, for example, assisted in projects about fair limits to wealth and ecological impact; about moral progress; and about the moral development of professionals. Some students have been involved preparing publications for a broader audience, such as blog posts. Senior staff will supervise your project. If you are interested, please discuss this with your tutor/supervisor.

Procedure at the end of the internship

A meeting will be organized before the internship officially ends and the performance and results of the internship will be discussed. Often, the external supervisor will also be present.

The intern will deliver:

The internship report: a description of your activities and the final deliverables (report, brochure, products of your internship)

A reflection report: a reflection on the process, content and your working experience in the organization. The reflection gives insight in the relation between the internship, ambitions of the student and the MA Applied Ethics programme:

1. What have you learned, what were your strengths and weaknesses? (you and the internship)

2. Which learning aims did you realize and which didn’t you? Why? (you and your learning process)

3. How is this internship relevant to you and to Applied Ethics? What is the take home message for you after this internship?

These products have to be submitted a week before the meeting (mail your products to the supervisors). The products of the internship, incl. the reflection report (sometimes a revised version), will be archived, unless different agreements have been made with the internship organization. The providing organization will fill in an evaluation form (also to be found on the website of the Faculty of Humanities). The supervisor from the MA programme is the one who determines the grade for the internship.

Internship Rubric:

Note: Very high-quality internship products (i.e. products in addition to the reflection report) will always be an important necessary condition for earning a very high grade. P

A Internship has been arranged according procedures

B Quality of the assignment is adequate (MA level, fitting aims of student and aims of MA program)

C Time schedule is clear, contracts are signed

R EFLECTION

Criteria further described Unsatisfactory

A Does the report show sufficient critical self-reflection on the learning process and the student’s own performance at the workplace?

B Does the report clearly indicate which learning goals were achieved and the manner in which they were achieved?

C Does the student reflect on the feedback given during the internship by colleagues and supervisors?

D Does the report deal with the relationship between real-world practice and the knowledge acquired during the studies from an academic perspective?

E Does the student reflect both on aims of the MA program, his/her own position in applied ethics & the internship in relation to each other?

P ROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE

A No personal learning aims were described, nor reflected upon

B No structural reflection on learning goals

C Student does not reflect on feedback

D No

E No

Criteria further described Unsatisfactory (< 6)

A Effort and motivation (enthusiasm, effort, involvement, active participation, seizing learning opportunities, creativity)

B Independence (planning, structured and independent work, meeting deadlines, keeping agreements, showing initiative, capable of justifying choices)

C Collaboration (integration in the team, listening, active participation, receiving feedback, giving feedback, flexibility)

D Accuracy (completeness, clear notes and reports, professional finishing of products, careful dealing with information)

A

CADEMIC S KILLS

If one of the aspects A-D is clearly below a minimal threshold, the professional attitude will be deemed unsatisfactory.

A Student describes what (s)he has learned, aimed for and is able to evaluate her own performance

B Student clearly reflects on aims of the internship and personal learning aims

C Student shows how feedback is used

D Yes

E Yes

A Student is able to evaluate own performance and take the ‘outsider’ perspective both to stakeholder as one’s own performance

B See A, and does this in a very structured manner

C Feedback is used

D Yes, student shows academic attitude

E Yes, in a professional manner

A Student is able to see own performance in light of a broader development of performance, and is able to relate performance to internship

B/C See A and does this in a very structured manner

D Yes, student shows academic attitude

E Yes, in a professional manner and interrelated

There is no aspect below a minimal threshold, but no/hardly any clearly above it either.

At least two aspects are very clearly above the threshold, e.g. student is very motivated and very pleasant to work with; and the other two aspects are clearly ok.

All four aspects A-D are very clearly above the threshold

Criteria further described Unsatisfactory (< 6) Satisfactory (67)

A Knowledge (level of knowledge, application of knowledge, insight in structures and organization of future field employment)

B Problem solving: identifying a problem; translation to concrete questions and proposals to solve problems

C Reflection and self-management: critical attitude towards own functioning; insight in shortcomings; ability to adapt

D Communication skills; correct use of Dutch/English; knowledge of jargon, communication style

If one of the aspects A-D is clearly below a minimal threshold, the professional attitude will be deemed unsatisfactory

There is no aspect below a minimal threshold, but no/hardly any clearly above it either

At least two aspects are very clearly above the threshold, and the other two aspects are clearly ok

All four aspects A-D are very clearly above the threshold.

P RACTICAL A CCOMPLISHMENTS

Criteria

A

A

A

B

B

B

R ESEARCH R EPORT ( IF APPLICABLE ) Criteria

A Structure is not clear and/or

B Philosophical Quality

C Usability for stakeholder

Thesis

B Content is hardly philosophical content/ more descriptive than reflective and/or

C not usable for stakeholder

A Structure of the report is clear to reader and

B Philosophical quality is basic and

C Report is usable for stakeholder

A Structure of the report is clear to reader and

B Philosophical quality is good and

C Report is very usable for stakeholder

A Structure of the report is clear to reader and

B Philosophical quality is outstanding and

C Report is very or extremely usable for stakeholder

Your programme will be concluded with a thesis. This thesis is the last course in the Master programme, in which you apply the skills, knowledge and insights that you have acquired during the master. You do independent research and write an academic thesis (for example after completion of a research internship) based on the gathered information. The thesis should be around 15,000 words in length and will yield 15 EC.

Formal criteria

Each 15 EC thesis, must have: An introduction, table of contents, body, and conclusion. A summary (approximately 200 words).

Consistent use and format of references to literature, using such styles as APA or Chicago. The thesis must be written in correct English (if applicable: have it checked by a native speaker).

Length of the thesis should be about 15,000 words. Use 1,5 line spacing, default 12pt. word font.

Substantive criteria

A rubric has been developed to help staff grade thesis and students to know what is expected in a MA Applied Ethics thesis. Indicators are derived from the MA thesis evaluation form. Thesis grades are in the end rounded off to half-points.

Thesis rubric:

1. P ROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTION FAIL

The description is unclear and does not lead to a clear research question. Central question is missing or inadequate.

The description of the central problem and/or research question is incomplete and / or sloppy.

The description of the problem is clear and leads to a clear central question and to specific subquestions.

5.5-6: description problem and research question is adequate.

7-8.5: problem and RQ is good and welldefined with well-defined sub-questions logically derived from the main question/topic.

8.5-10: Problem and RQ and subquestions are original, clear and welldefined and sub-questions are logically derived from the main question/topic. It is clear what the student wants to contribute to the debate.

FAIL

3.9 and lower

Relevance and/or aim of research are lacking. Contribution to the debate is missing. Topic is not relevant for applied ethics.

FIX

From 4.0 to 5.4

Relevance and/or aim of research are unclear.

Contribution to the debate is inadequate. Topic is not relevant for applied ethics.

6-7: problem and RQ are clearly described and leading to relevant subquestions logically derived from the main question/topic.

SUFFICIENTSATISFACTORY

From 5.5 to 7.0

Relevance and aim are clearly and coherently described. Student situates his/her thesis in the debate adequately. The topic is relevant to the field of applied ethics.

5.5-6: sufficient

6-7: clear, coherent and well-defined.

GOOD-VERY GOOD

From 7.1 to 8.5

EXCELLENT

From 8.6 to 10

Thesis is clearly situated within the existing literature, ethical thinking and/or societal debates. The introduction serves as an appealing invitation to read the thesis. High relevance for society and domain of applied ethics.

7-8.5 clearly & coherently 8.5-10 contributes significantly to the debate, appealing invitation to read the thesis.

Theory is also part of the method in the applied ethics. In this indicator/category the focus is on whether the chosen theories & concepts are pertinent for the RQ and whether the theories & concepts are adequately elaborated upon.

Theories and concepts are too minimal, nonselective and/or not pertinent for Research Question, and not tied together into a cohesive whole. Chosen theories and concepts/terms are not clearly defined.

Chosen theories and concepts and terms are only partly relevant and/or incomplete, and insufficiently defined, leading to poor substantiation of the proposed research.

The research is linked to relevant and representative theories and concepts, which is functional for executing the proposed research. Chosen theories and concepts are sufficiently clear described and pertinent for the RQ. Student shows knowledge of theories & concepts and the major controversies & debates concerning the topic.

5.5-6: sufficient

6.1-7: satisfactory

The research is well-embedded in the relevant theories, from which relevant concepts are selected and used, resulting in an accurate and coherent conceptual framework. Theories and concepts are clearly defined and critically evaluated.

7.1-8.5

Good+ Originality in connecting subjects and/or makes the connection to other disciplines.

8.6-10

2. A CADEMIC D EBATE

3. T HEORETICAL C ONTEXT

Overlap with theory, but in this indicator/category the focus is on the explication of the method and whether the student reflected on and justified the chosen method; does it make sense to use this method? FAIL

FIX

SUFFICIENTSATISFACTORY

GOOD-VERY GOOD

EXCELLENT

3.9 and lower

From 4.0 to 5.4

The method is inaccurately and/or incompletely described.

From 5.5 to 7.0

The research method is comprehensively described; validity and suitability for the research question are described in some detail.

5.5-6: sufficient

6.1-7: satisfactory

From 7.1 to 8.5

From 8.6 to 10 Description of method is lacking.

7.1-8.5: The research method is comprehensively described; validity and suitability for the research question are described in detail, as well as limitations of the chosen method.

8.6-10 + The method is innovative and original.

No justification of the method is offered.

Justification for the selected method is missing, insufficient and/or lacks a link with the research question (s)/aim(s).

& A RGUMENTATION

Justification for the selected method is convincing and shows a clear link with the research question (s)/aim(s).

Justification for the selected method is convincing and shows a clear link with the research question (s)/aim(s), and with the context of the research. Potential weak points and/or pitfalls of the method are acknowledged.

FAIL

3.9 and lower

Critical examination of arguments and presuppositions is lacking or minimal.

FIX

From 4.0 to 5.4

Critical examination of arguments and presuppositions is incomplete, sloppy and/or vague.

SUFFICIENTSATISFACTORY

From 5.5 to 7.0

Critical examination of arguments and presuppositions are sufficient. Argumentation is clear and coherent, thorough.

GOOD-VERY GOOD

From 7.1 to 8.5

+ Student indicates possible weakness or limitations of the analysis & arguments.

EXCELLENT

From 8.6 to 10

+ Analytic strength as well as originality of ideas and arguments.

No balance between description and (conceptual) analysis.

6. C ONCLUSION

No good balance between description and (conceptual) analysis.

A sufficientsatisfactory balance exists between description and analysis.

+ In-depth interpretations and reflections on these in a wider context.

The conclusion should not contain new aspects and/or arguments, but it is a good idea to give suggestions for future research.

FAIL

3.9 and lower

Answer to RQ is absent or conclusion does not do justice to the content of the thesis.

FIX

From 4.0 to 5.4

Conclusions are a mere summary. The answers to the research questions are not fully supported by the analysis & arguments.

SUFFICIENTSATISFACTORY

From 5.5 to 7.0

After a short summary, the research question is answered with reference to arguments. Implications and/or suggestions for further research are addressed superficially.

The conclusion exceeds the level of summary of results.

GOOD-VERY GOOD

From 7.1 to 8.5

EXCELLENT

From 8.6 to 10

After a short summary of the project, the research question is answered carefully with reference to theory and arguments. Implications are addressed, suggestions for further research included and student reflects critically on his/her own approach.

4. M ETHOD

5. A NALYSIS

7. R EFERENCES AND SOURCES

FAIL

FIX

SUFFICIENTSATISFACTORY

GOOD-VERY GOOD

EXCELLENT

3.9 and lower

From 4.0 to 5.4

From 5.5 to 7.0

References in text and list comply with standards of research journal(s).

From 7.1 to 8.5

Idem, but no mistakes have been made.

9.

From 8.6 to 10 Very sloppy. References in text and/or list are incomplete, inconsistent, and contain multiple mistakes. Some references are irrelevant or untraceable.

References do not comply with standards of research journal(s).

8. S TRUCTURE OF THESIS

FAIL

FIX

References are complete, relevant and traceable, but may occasionally contain some mistakes. Quality of sources is sufficient or satisfactory.

The difference between analysis of one’s own and that of others is clearly marked.

Critical use of literature and other sources. Quality of sources is good.

SUFFICIENTSATISFACTORY

GOOD-VERY GOOD

EXCELLENT

3.9 and lower

From 4.0 to 5.4

From 5.5 to 7.0

Structure is clear. Information is presented in a logical order, and a clear arrangements of chapters and paragraphs exists.

From 7.1 to 8.5

Structure (very) clear.

Structure (very) clear.

From 8.6 to 10 Structure is lacking or incomplete. A sloppy structure (chapter, sections, paragraphs etc) and information presented in illogical order.

C OMPOSITION

& STYLE ; OVERALL QUALITY OF WRITING

Elements such as introduction, summary etc. are included. FAIL

FIX

SUFFICIENTSATISFACTORY

GOOD-VERY GOOD

EXCELLENT

3.9 and lower

From 4.0 to 5.4

Text is not well structured and difficult to read or understand. Layout of the final document does not meet the standards. Some mistakes in terminology of domain. Style of thesis is inconsistent.

From 5.5 to 7.0

Clear construction of and variety in length of sentences. Minor mistakes in grammar or spelling. Text is wellstructured, facilitating the understanding of the reader. Layout of the final document is consistent. Terminology of the domain is used precisely and specifically. Style of the thesis is consistent (formal or informal).

From 7.1 to 8.5

The thesis is easy to read

From 8.6 to 10 Frequent mistakes, many typos. Terminology of domain is used inadequately. Style is inconsistent/uneven. Difficult to read & understand.

Formulations are varied, specific and appropriate, inviting towards further reading. Layout of the final document is professional and attractive. Terminology of the domain is used precisely and specifically.

Style of the thesis is consistent (formal or informal) and addresses the fellow students.

3.9 and lower

Ideas are given by the supervisor, but poorly incorporated. No ‘ownership’ of the topic and process by the student. Appointment and deadlines were not met.

From 4.0 to 5.4

Ideas are primarily given by the supervisor. Student tasks are primarily initiated by the supervisor (demonstrating, reflecting, making choices, planning). The tasks needed to be monitored closely by the supervisor. Student follows up on given direction.

Appointments and deadlines not always met.

From 5.5 to 7.0

Ideas are generated in conjunction with supervisor. Ideas and tasks are sometimes generated by the teacher, sometimes by the student (student recognizes where help is needed and asks for it).

Appointments and deadlines were respected

Guidelines for thesis work and supervision

GOOD-VERY

From 7.1 to 8.5

From 8.6 to 10

Ideas are generated autonomously. Supervision meetings are primarily based on student-initiated planning, discussions, and reflections.

Appointments and deadlines were initiated by the student.

Write your thesis with your co-students as your audience in mind (if you address any other specific audience, please discuss this with your supervisor). Assuming this audience will help you to decide what level of explanation is required for theories and concepts.

The topics of the thesis should be in line with the research themes of the staff of the Ethics Institute. You will be informed about the research current staff is working on and could thus write a thesis in line with their research interests. The topics allow for considerable flexibility, and you will still have to develop your own idea and research question for the thesis. If you desire to cover a topic within a completely different theme, this is allowed in some cases, but you have to prepare a proper outline in time and discuss this with the coordinator before we can approve it.

Decisions about topics, drafting a thesis outline, and being assigned a supervisor, will all happen by midFebruary 2023. You are not allowed to approach potential supervisors yourself; the coordinator appoints your supervisor and second examiner. After you have been appointed a supervisor and second reader, you will make your own arrangements about consultations and the strategy to work on the thesis. During the writing process you will typically have four meetings with your supervisor.

The second reader will evaluate the outline of the thesis at the start and is involved at the end, in the grading of the final version of the thesis. Notice that supervisors will expect you to have mastered general skills of writing an outline and finding literature etc. An updated skills manual philosophy is available at vrw.sites.uu.nl

Students can in addition consult, for example, Joel Feinberg. Doing Philosophy. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

Thesis deadline & formalities

Utrecht University urges students (and their supervisors) to see to the completion and grading of the MA thesis by the end of the second semester. In order for your supervisor and a second reader to grade the thesis before this date, you have to hand the final version of the thesis on 16 June 2024, 23:59h. Thesis supervision is offered throughout block 3 and 4 (except of course for students writing their thesis in block 1, 2) and not from 1 July - 31 August. If your thesis receives the examination result ‘Fail’ (and is awarded a 5.4 or lower, but not lower than a 4.0) you can participate in one resit. In that case you have to submit a new version before August 15th and examination will take place in the last week of August. In order to be eligible for a resit, you must have submitted your thesis before the deadline (16 June 2024). The very

last possibility for registration of the grade in the system, within the academic year, is typically 28 August. In case you fail for the resit, you have to start with a new topic and a new supervisor in the next academic year (2024-2025).

Part-time students, who may receive permission to spread their thesis over two semesters, and students who retake their thesis will sometimes follow a thesis trajectory starting in September instead of February. In this case, your deadline will be 16 January 2025, 23:59h – or, for continuing students who start writing in September 2023, 16 January 2024. Ask the programme coordinator for more information. It is only possible to start a thesis trajectory in September (with a deadline in mid-January) or January (with a deadline in midJune); you cannot start at some other point during the year.

Submission formalities

The deadline for sending your final thesis to your supervisor and second examiner is on 16 June 2024. All the information about uploading your thesis for assessment is on this page: https://students.uu.nl/en/hum/applied-ethics/curriculum/masters-thesis. You are expected to mail an electronic copy of your thesis to your supervisor and to the second examiner. Also upload your thesis onto Osiris and Blackboard.

If you do not submit your thesis at or before the deadline, your thesis will not be accepted for examination nor for a resit. Any and all exceptions, in case of personal circumstances, go via an advice of the study advisor, which the programme coordinator may decide to follow or not to follow.

The thesis process will be concluded by a conversation between the student, supervisor and second examiner. This conversation will happen after the thesis has been graded; it will not influence the thesis grade.

For graduation, please check carefully whether all the results of your courses, internship and thesis are in OSIRIS (the registration system). Also note: graduation does not automatically mean de-enrolment and stopping to pay fees. The Studiepunt Geesteswetenschappen can tell you about the formalities.

Deadlines and other dates (for students who write their thesis in block 3-4)

Around mid-Jan. Students submit draft version of the outline of the thesis to the coordinator, based on an extensive thesis proposal template.

Around mid-Feb Announcements of allocation of supervisors and second readers. From this point, students will contact supervisors themselves, and arrange with supervisor a series of meetings and working procedure. There will also be thesis presentations and peer review in small groups.

16 June Deadline submission thesis (and upload in Blackboard).

Evaluation form

The assessment of the thesis will be done by two evaluators by filling out a standard evaluation form. This form can be found under https://students.uu.nl/en/hum/applied-ethics/curriculum/masters-thesis

Aspects 1 up to and including 7 must be assessed as satisfactory in order for the student to be able to pass the master’s thesis. Moreover, the thesis must fulfil the formal requirements as stated on the evaluation form. If these are not met, the thesis may be inadmissible for evaluation.

Procedures and Grading

If your supervisor is affiliated with the programme, they will be your first evaluator. The supervisor and a second reader will grade your thesis; each of them will fill out the evaluation form separately and come to a final grade after joint consultation.

Once the student has handed in the final version of the thesis, the evaluators have 10 working days to evaluate the thesis, and to have an oral examination and determine the final grade.

In rare cases, the first and second evaluator might in the end disagree about your grade. The supervisor will then consult a third evaluator. You will be given notice by the supervisor that a third evaluator has been

consulted and that the grading period of 10 working days will be extended by another 10 working days.

COMMUNITIES: FACEBOOK, LINKEDIN AND ALUMNI

An important community building activity is setting up a Facebook group. Ever since the first group was set up years ago, it has worked very well. At the start of each academic year, students create a new Facebook group for their own cohort.

There is a Linked-in group for alumni (Alumni Applied Ethics) and a yearly meeting with alumni and new students. Alumni will be involved in the lecture seminar and during courses.

During the academic year students will be informed about courses, meetings, vacancies, conferences etc. through the mailing list: studethics@phil.uu.nl

THIS MASTER AND SOCIETY

Around 30% of our graduates work at a university, either as teachers or as PhD students. Other graduates teach ethics to professionals or work as a consultant in governmental and policy contexts. Some of our alumni work in journalism or at various NGOs or banks.

Discuss your career plans with your tutor and keep updated about the offerings of Career Services and of our alumni and internship officer, incl. events where alumni are involved.

IMPORTANT FOR HUMANITIES STUDENTS

New students students.uu.nl/hum-new Practical information for new students at the Humanities faculty.

Academic calendar students.uu.nl/hum-calendar

Information about days off, course registrations and change-of-enrolment days.

UU online

Information about our online systems and how to log in: students.uu.nl/hum-online In need of a manual? IT manuals: https://manuals.uu.nl/en

REGISTRATION, PROCEDURES, INTERNSHIP INFO

Student Information Desk Humanities students.uu.nl/hum-contact

Programme related matters, such as

• course registration

• course schedules

• study results & study progress (Osiris)

• graduation

Student Services students.uu.nl/en/contact/student-services

Studying at Utrecht University in general:

• registration as a UU student

• tuition fees

• elite athletes

• disability or chronic illness

Internship coordinator students.uu.nl/hum-internshipcoordinator

Information about:

• guidelines and procedures

• internship placements

QUESTIONS ABOUT ENTERING THE JOB MARKET

Career Services students.uu.nl/hum-careerservices

Advice on getting a job after graduation through workshops, CV check-up, and coaching. Your programme coordinator will inform you about programme-specific events.

NEED EXTRA HELP?

Study advisor: students.uu.nl/hum-studyadvisor

Student psychologist: students.uu.nl/psychologist

Workshops: Skills Lab: students.uu.nl/en-skillslab

THINKING OF GOING ABROAD ?

International office Humanities: students.uu.nl/hum-io

OTHER FACILITIES

University Library: students.uu.nl/hum-library

Olympos sports centre: olympos.nl/en-us/home.aspx

Parnassos cultural centre: uu.nl/en/parnassos

FACT! You can find your grades, student card and timetable in the MyUU portal and the MyUU app: students.uu.nl/en/myuu and students.uu.nl/en/ myuu-app

FACT! In the second semester, you will have to register in Osiris for courses you wish to attend. If you want to switch courses, you can do so on the change-ofenrolment days before the start of the relevant block.

FACT! Deadlines are always listed in the course syllabus, which your lecturer will provide approximately 2 weeks prior to the course’s ’start.

FACT! If you need more information about specific aspects of your programme, e.g. internships or thesis, please see the Curriculum page on the programme website via students.uu.nl/hum.

FACT! Check students. uu.nl/hum-studentlife for information about living, jobs, sports and leisure in Utrecht!

© June 2023. Utrecht University, Faculty of Humanities. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented in this factsheet is correct and up to date. Utrecht University cannot be held liable for any false, inaccurate, or incomplete information presented herein.