The ethical decision-making framework and ethics strategy for QCE Physical Education Unit 3
“The ethical decision-making framework: identifying an ethical dilemma and the tension between values, analysing the dilemma, devising an ethics strategy as a course of action, and evaluating its effectiveness on stakeholders to optimise integrity and engagement”
QCAA Unit 3 uses the ethical decision-making framework as a process for the ethics investigation. First identify a genuine ethical dilemma and the tension between values in a specific physical activity context. Then gather primary and secondary data, analyse the relationships between the dilemma, stakeholders, and integrity and fair play, devise an ethics strategy that gives a concrete course of action, and evaluate its effectiveness on all stakeholders. The goal is to optimise integrity, fair play, and positive engagement, and strong answers run the whole process on one specific dilemma.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
QCAA wants you to use the ethical decision-making framework as a process: define an ethical dilemma, identify the tension between values, analyse it with primary and secondary data, devise an ethics strategy that gives a course of action, and evaluate the strategy's effect on stakeholders. This is the engine of the Unit 3 ethics investigation (IA2). The marks come from running the process on a specific dilemma in a class, school, or community physical activity context, not from describing ethical theories in the abstract.
The answer
What an ethical dilemma is
An ethical dilemma is a situation where there is a genuine tension between values, so that any course of action involves giving up something that matters. It is more than a rule being broken. The defining feature is the tension: a coach who wants to win (a performance value) but must rest a fatigued junior (a welfare value) faces a dilemma because both values are legitimate.
Step 1: Identify the dilemma and the value tension
Frame the problem in a specific context (a class, school, or community activity) and name the tension between the values of the players or organisation. Be precise about whose values are in conflict and what each side is trying to protect. Identifying the tension clearly is what separates a dilemma from a simple rule breach.
Step 2: Find the relevant information
Gather the facts of the situation: the relevant rules, codes of conduct, stakeholders affected, and any precedent. QCAA expects you to draw on both primary data (your own observation, surveys, or interviews in the activity context) and secondary data (codes of conduct, governing-body policy, research, and how similar dilemmas have been handled elsewhere).
Step 3: Analyse the dilemma
Analyse the data to establish relationships between the dilemma, the influence of stakeholders on ethics and values, the tensions relating to integrity and fair play, and the strategies others have used in response to similar dilemmas. The analysis should make clear why the dilemma threatens integrity or engagement and which stakeholders carry the most influence.
Step 4: Devise an ethics strategy
An ethics strategy is a planned course of action that responds to the dilemma to improve the integrity of the player or organisation and optimise positive engagement. It should be concrete and feasible in the context: for example a revised code of conduct, an education session, a rotation policy, a reporting pathway, or a sanction structure. The strategy must address the actual value tension you identified, not a generic problem.
Step 5: Evaluate the strategy on stakeholders
Reflect on the outcome by determining the effectiveness of the ethics strategy on all stakeholders. Evaluation weighs benefits and costs for each stakeholder group (players, coaches, officials, families, the organisation) and judges whether integrity and engagement have improved. A strong evaluation acknowledges trade-offs rather than claiming the strategy works perfectly for everyone.
Integrity, fair play and engagement
The framework exists to optimise integrity (acting honestly and consistently with shared values), fair play (equal opportunity and respect for the rules and opponents), and positive engagement (people choosing to take part and stay involved). Keep these three outcomes in view, because the quality of an ethics strategy is judged by how well it serves them.
The ethical decision-making framework is a five-step process: identify the dilemma and the value tension, find relevant information (primary and secondary data), analyse the dilemma, devise an ethics strategy as a course of action, and evaluate its effectiveness on all stakeholders to optimise integrity and engagement.
Identify the dilemma and the value tension
A school athletics squad discovers a senior athlete is using a banned supplement that may improve results. The tension is between the performance value (winning and selection) and the integrity and fair-play values (clean competition and athlete welfare). Name both values so it reads as a dilemma, not a simple breach.
Find relevant information
Gather secondary data (the anti-doping code, school sport policy, the supplement's status and health risks) and primary data (interviews with the athlete and coach, the squad's understanding of the rules). Identify which stakeholders are affected and who holds influence.
Analyse the dilemma
Establish the relationships: the athlete's choice threatens fair play for competitors, exposes the school to sanction, and risks the athlete's health. The coach and school carry the most influence over the outcome, so the analysis centres on their responsibilities.
Devise and evaluate the ethics strategy
Devise a concrete course of action: a mandatory anti-doping education session, a clear reporting pathway, and a sanction policy aligned with the code. Then evaluate on all stakeholders, noting the athlete may lose short-term results (a cost) while competitors regain fair competition and the school protects its integrity (benefits), concluding whether integrity and engagement improve overall.
- Treating a rule breach as a dilemma
- A dilemma needs a genuine tension between two legitimate values. Name both values and explain the tension.
- Skipping the analysis and jumping to a strategy
- The strategy must follow from analysed data about stakeholders and value tensions, not from opinion.
- Devising a vague strategy
- An ethics strategy is a concrete course of action (a policy, an education session, a reporting pathway), feasible in the stated context.
- Evaluating only the intended winners
- Evaluate the effect on all stakeholder groups and acknowledge trade-offs, because a strategy that helps one group can harm another.
- Confusing this with the contemporary-issues content
- This dot point is the process; the named ethical frameworks and issues (doping, gender, governance) are covered in the ethics and integrity dot point.
Try this
Q1. Define an ethical dilemma and explain how it differs from a simple breach of the rules. [3 marks]
- Cue. A dilemma is a tension between two legitimate values where any choice sacrifices something that matters; a rule breach has a clear right answer (follow the rule), whereas a dilemma has competing defensible options.
Q2. Outline the steps of the ethical decision-making framework and explain why evaluating the strategy on all stakeholders matters. [5 marks]
- Cue. Identify the dilemma and value tension, find information, analyse, devise an ethics strategy, evaluate on stakeholders; evaluating across all stakeholders matters because a strategy that improves integrity for one group may reduce engagement for another, and the judgment must weigh those trade-offs.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of QCAA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Practice7 marksA community netball club faces a dilemma: a star junior player is showing signs of overtraining, but the club is pushing for a finals win. Using the ethical decision-making framework, analyse the dilemma and devise an ethics strategy, then justify how it optimises integrity and engagement.Show worked answer →
A 7 mark response runs the framework on the specific dilemma.
- Identify the dilemma and value tension
- The tension is between a performance value (winning the final) and a welfare value (protecting a junior's health). Both are legitimate, which makes it a genuine dilemma.
- Analyse with stakeholders
- Stakeholders include the player, parents, coach, club and other players. Secondary data such as the club code of conduct and sport governing-body welfare policy frame the analysis; the coach and club hold the most influence.
- Devise an ethics strategy
- A concrete course of action, for example a load-monitoring and rotation policy with mandatory rest, plus a welfare reporting pathway.
- Justify against integrity and engagement
- The strategy protects the player (welfare and integrity) while keeping the club competitive over the season, sustaining engagement.
Markers reward the named value tension, stakeholder analysis grounded in data, a concrete strategy, and a justification tied to integrity, fair play and engagement.
Practice4 marksExplain why evaluating an ethics strategy on all stakeholders, rather than only the intended beneficiaries, is essential to the ethical decision-making framework.Show worked answer →
A 4 mark explain response needs the principle and a worked reason.
- All stakeholders matter
- An ethics strategy creates trade-offs: a policy that protects players may reduce a coach's autonomy or limit short-term results.
- Why evaluate broadly
- Judging effectiveness only on the intended winners hides costs imposed on other groups and overstates the strategy's success. A defensible evaluation weighs benefits and costs for players, coaches, officials, families and the organisation.
- Link to the goal
- Only a full-stakeholder evaluation can confirm whether overall integrity and engagement have improved.
Markers reward the trade-off principle and an explicit link to integrity and engagement across stakeholder groups.