Museum Studies Ethics Bowl Rules

Introduction to Museum Studies, A503/A403
Elizabeth Kryder-Reid & Larry J. Zimmerman
IUPUI

Museum Studies Ethics Bowl Rules, Procedures & Strategies

About 2-3 weeks ahead of the Ethics Bowl, students will write ethical dilemmas or scenarios. The instructors will edit the scenarios and choose the most interesting or challenging scenarios to be debated, enough to provide a scenario for each pairing in each round, as well as a few extras. The scenarios selected will be provided to the class in advance for preparation.
In an Ethics Bowl match, each team will be questioned by a moderator on a scenario, which is a fictional ethical scenario or dilemma. Although the scenarios are made available ahead of time, none of the participants will know in advance which of the dilemmas they will be asked to address in the Ethics Bowl competition, nor will they know the questions. No books will be allowed, but team members are allowed to bring simple notes on 3" x 5" index cards. However, a team that reads from a prepared statement may be disqualified at the discretion of the moderator. Note paper to jot down thoughts is permitted.
At the beginning of each match, each team will be provided with a copy of the scenario to be debated.
The moderator will flip a coin. The winner of the coin toss will choose to go first or second.
The moderator will read the scenario aloud and ask a question about the scenario (these may already be at the end of the scenario). The moderator will keep time according to the following rules, but is given wide discretion and should not interrupt either teams or judges "in mid-sentence," allowing them to finish an argument.
The team will have one (1) minute to confer, after which one spokesperson for the team may use up to five (5) minutes to respond to the moderator's question.
The opposing team receives one (1) minute to confer, after which it may choose to present a response to the other team's answer and/or pose a question to the other team. The opposing team's response/question, presented by one spokesperson, may not exceed five (5) minutes.
The judges have two(2) minutes to confer. Each judge may ask one question of either team, with the option of one brief immediate follow-up question, also of either team. The entire period for the judges' questions should not exceed sixteen (16) minutes, but they may ask the moderator for extra time if needed.
The teams have one (1) minute to confer after each primary question and two (2) minutes to respond to it. Follow-up questions should be answered after a brief conference (30 seconds or so) and should be answered in one (1) minute. Note well: to encourage participation, different team members must respond to the questions of different judges. However, only one team member may respond to a judge's question. Judges are allowed to address questions to particular team members if they wish. The original spokesperson may not respond to a question unless all other team members have responded at least once.
When the teams are done answering the judges' questions, each team will have one (1) minute to confer, and then have two (2) minutes to make a closing statement or rebuttal.
Scoring. Each team will be evaluated on the basis of four (4) criteria:
1. Intelligibility—Has the team stated and defended its position in a way that is logically consistent? Has the team expressed its responses with enough clarity and precision that the judges can understand it?
2. Depth—To what extent does the team's statement and defense of its position indicate an awareness and understanding of the issues that the judge views as ethically central to the scenario.
3. Focus—To what extent does the team's statement and defense of its position avoid issues that are ethically irrelevant to the scenario?
4. Judgment—To what extent, in the judge's view, has the team made a careful and reasonable comparative assessment of considerations it identifies as ethically relevant to the scenario.
Each judge will give both teams an overall score of zero (0) to five―five (5) being the highest score―based on these four criteria. Each of the criteria will be rated on a scale from zero to five, five being the highest score, zero being the lowest. When the scores for the four criteria are tallied, a team may receive as many as twenty (20) points per judge or as few as zero (0). A perfect score for a panel of three judges would be sixty (60) points (See the judges' scoring sheet and instructions).
The tabulators check the scores and report them to the moderator, who announces the highest scoring team.
Judges are encouraged to give feedback to the participating teams, and the highest scoring team moves into the next round, continuing until it is defeated or has won the Ethics Bowl.

Note: the Rounds usually go faster than the full time allowed for in steps 2-8, so each round probably will take a half-hour or so, although the first time will likely be less smooth than Bowl 2. We envision about two hours for each ethics bowl.

Strategies

1. Obviously, to do well in the ethics bowl, you must prepare adequately as a team, with a response and questions prepared for each scenario.

2. Do not write out a detailed response, but take note only of the key elements of a response to each scenario that your spokesperson can use to state your position. Remember that if a prepared response is read, you may face disqualification.

3. A good strategy is to take each question, list out the key elements of the dilemma, and discuss each element with your teammates. Craft the main points of a response to be sure each major element is covered. Then try to think of questions you'd like to ask about the entire dilemma or about its parts. Discuss these with your team and choose the most likely ones. Jot down the main points of a brief answer to each. Don't get too wrapped up in sticking with the response or questions you've selected. There are too many permutations to cover everything in your preparation. The response, questions, and brief answers are mostly meant to provide you with "memory joggers."

4. You also should think about possible questions regarding the scenario that you may wish to ask the other team, depending on how they respond to the scenario or the questions of judges or yours. You certainly can't cover all possibilities in your preparation, but you may be able to prepare yourself for answering questions you get asked and to ask questions that may trip up the other team. One of your considerations is whether you want to go first to present an initial position to which your opponent is to respond or whether you wish to take a chance on being able to respond to them. This depends on whether you win the opening coin toss and get to choose, of course. You may be forced into one role or another if you lose the coin toss, so be prepared to go either way.

6. The real key to performance is not in the preparation of some canned response, but in your ability to put forward a logical approach to handling the dilemma and especially in your responses to questions. This is where the ethics bowl rounds are always won or lost!

Conferences | Organizations | Indy Museums | Jobs

Credits:

Materials for these Ethics Bowl pages have been adapted from several Ethics Bowl web sites. These include:

Association of Professional and Practical Ethics
Center for Applied and Professional Ethics
The Society for American Archaeology Ethics Bowl

Introduction to Museum Studies, A503/A403 Elizabeth Kryder-Reid & Larry J. Zimmerman IUPUI