Core Value
Humanity, Dignity and Empathy
Assessing
How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts
Whatever your question (if you choose or adapt a question from the Anchoring section or create your own), the Deep Dive table can help you identify positive and negative aspects – green or red flags in a candidate’s answers.
For a simple scoring or assessment scheme, you can simply assign +1 to positive or green flag content and -1 to red flag answers.
For a scoring system of say 0-3 for each question, we would recommend the following matrix to be used in combination with the Deep Dive table for each value or competency. We recommend printing copies of the Deep Dive tables, as well as the full Murad Code, so that these can be easily consulted when assessing a candidate.
| Scoring / grading | Values |
|---|---|
| 0 | Misaligned (harmful, unsafe, or dismissive answers) with red flags - No elements demonstrated or more than 1 limiting behaviors shown. |
| 1 | Weak alignment (superficial, misses core principles) with 1 or 2 red flags - Only 1 or 2 elements demonstrated, with more than 1 limited behaviour also shown. |
| 2 | Partial alignment (mentions some key elements but incomplete) with 1 or no red flags - A good number of elements demonstrated but also 1 red flag or concern raised. |
| 3 | Strong alignment (clear survivor-centred reasoning, practical actions, responsibility) with no red flags - Multiple elements demonstrated and no red flags or limiting behaviours raised. |
Below, there is also an assessment guide to the sample questions provided in the Anchoring section.
Sample written test examples
Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements):
1. A survivor attends a research interview with you and after informed consent and an open question from you to prompt an open narrative about their experience of accessing services, the survivor recounts what seems like a prepared or rehearsed, rigid or fixed recounting of the sexual violence against them. What do you do?
Main elements expected in answers: recognition that trauma may impact how events are recounted, recognition that this person may have had to tell their story many times before for other purposes, respect and acknowledgement for the information and account given, acknowledgement and gratitude to the survivor for sharing what happened to them, active listening and gentle redirect after their account towards impact and need for services and their situation now.
Red flags: probing or challenging the account with the survivor, pressing for more details about the SCRSV without it being relevant to the research, suggestion of disbelief rather than trying to understand what might lead to this form of disclosure, early interruption or shutting down what the survivor wishes to say, or a hard redirect to the research topic of interest,.
Technical test:
1. Describe any planning or preparation steps you can take to maximise the possibility of a survivor feeling that they were treated with respect, dignity and empathy.
Main elements expected in answers: Risk-assessing how to safely and discreetly approach/ contact/communicate with survivors if they do not approach you. Asking a survivor what they want and need - survivor engagement in planning so they can identity a place that feels safe, comfortable and accessible for them and can help shape who and what is in room for them, discussion with the survivor about logistics and travel taking into account their available and convenient time, child care or other responsibilities, safety, profile/camouflaging access, distance and cost, early discussion of safety and well-being concerns including potential triggers or elements which might make them uncomfortable, discussion about confidentiality and privacy, planning a careful informed consent process which reduces pressure and power imbalances which gives them time to get advice or think things through.
Red flags: no discussion with survivor or bringing them into co-design the process, assumptions made about what they would want or what makes them comfortable, no recognition of breadth of intersectional realities and challenges for survivors (including men and boys, and those with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC)), no flexibility or tailoring of methodology, logistics or approach for individual survivor.
2. When using information about SCRSV gathered from a survivor, what steps do you take to ensure you are using or presenting that information in a way which is respectful and empathetic of the survivor, and which safeguards their dignity?
Main elements expected in answers: careful design, implementation and continued consideration of informed consent processes and any concerns/wishes raised by survivor; consider possibility of survivor review if accessible; deidentification/use of pseudonyms or redaction according to wishes of survivor and purpose; use of non-stigmatising language, accurate portrayal without overfocus on sensationalised or graphic details, ensure survivors are not being portrayed or framed only in terms of the violence against them (person first), whenever possible consider current needs and realities and acknowledge courage for disclosure and gratitude for their efforts.
Red flags: vague answer, no specifics, or no mention of informed consent or consultation with survivor, no mention of non-stigmatising language, focus only on own objectives and purpose as priorities or on audience/end-user reaction or impact.
3. How do you ensure a survivor feels believed and supported when they disclose their story to you?
Main elements expected in answers: co-design or consultation about needs and wishes in preparation phase; provide choices, encourage agency, ensure informed consent on their terms; active listening; give control over the pace through open questioning and gentle encouragement to continue or explain more; no judgement or challenge including body language and reactions; verbal acknowledgement and gratitude; safe structure to an interview, including opening and checking in about concerns or worries, and a closing which brings them back to the present and checks about the next few days, informal support available to them and whether more formal support and referrals would be helpful; being respectful of agreed time/duration and checking in with them regularly on time, breaks and needs.
Red flags: dismissive of the suggestion this is part of their role or responsibilities, use of any form of stigmatising language, minimisation, disbelief, challenging or questioning of their account under the guise of ‘professionalism’ or ‘impartiality’.
Sample interview questions
1. Tell us about a situation in which you demonstrated empathy during your work, and what action you took as a result. What was the outcome?
Main elements expected in answers: gives concrete, detailed example of empathetic observation, listening and adaptation, clear example of putting themselves in the other person’s shoes and trying to understand their perspective and realities, direct connection to action and a positive outcome explained.
Red flags: unable to provide example, or vague or irrelevant example, centred on themselves rather than the survivor, no evidence of change in approach, unable to describe positive outcome.
2. Describe one work example of when you failed to empathise with or understand a person’s situation, and what you learned from it.
Main elements expected in answers: honest self-reflection and acknowledgement of what went wrong with responsibility/ownership of that, clear articulation of learning and change in approach afterwards.
Red flags: unable to provide example, or vague or irrelevant example, denial, dismissive or defensive; centred on themselves rather than the other person, blaming the other person rather than acknowledging own role, no evidence of lessons learned in approach.
3. What are the most important steps you take to show respect and empathy with survivors?
Main elements expected in answers: Risk-assessing how to safely and discreetly approach/ contact/communicate with survivors if they do not approach you. Asking a survivor what they want and need - survivor engagement in planning so they can identity a place that feels safe, comfortable and accessible for them and can help shape who and what is in room for them, discussion with the survivor about logistics and travel taking into account their available and convenient time, child care or other responsibilities, safety, profile/camouflaging access, distance and cost, early discussion of safety and well-being concerns including potential triggers or elements which might make them uncomfortable, discussion about confidentiality and privacy, planning a careful informed consent process which reduces pressure and power imbalances which gives them time to get advice or think things through.
Red flags: no discussion with survivor or bringing them into co-design the process, assumptions made about what they would want or what makes them comfortable, no recognition of breadth of intersectional realities and challenges for survivors (including men and boys, and those with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC)), no flexibility or tailoring of methodology, logistics or approach for individual survivors.
4. Why do you think humanity is important for this work?
Main elements expected in answers: recognises humanity as a basic response to trauma and to dehumanising atrocities, understands that being humane comes before being a professional and above task orientation, sees others as human beings/persons first (rather than as sources of information) and connects this to respect and dignity (as well as ethics), reflects on the need to support, restore faith to and build trust with survivors, acknowledges shared humanity and human experience as common ground to build connection and as a core foundation for the work being safe, ethical and effective.
Red flags: unable to answer, no link to survivors, sees as optional or understands it as pity, no mention of dignity, trust-building or responsibility.
5. Give us an example of when you had to share bad news with someone, and how you did it?
Main elements expected in answers: clear detailed example given, particularly relevant if it relates to non-availability of a service, being unable to meet a request, having something turned down, closure of a service, non-continuation of case, non-selection as witness, etc. Should include prior reflection on how that person might react or what it might mean for them, and some thought about planning or finding support which would be meaningful for them and sustainable, consideration of timing, location, privacy and confidentiality, checking in with them, being present with dedicate time to spend, delivering the news gently but directly, acknowledging the bad news/outcome/pain/disappointment part, allowing time and space for reaction and expression, validation and support, discussion of next steps and how to be helpful. Red flags: missing any indications of empathy and considering what it will mean for the other person and what they might need, no consideration of privacy and time/space, no consideration of ongoing need for support afterwards, delegating to someone else, minimising or postponing the news to avoid it and its consequences (when unavoidable), focus on own feelings of disappointment/frustration rather than on how they centred the other person’s needs.