The ComplexEthics project assembled a four‑partner consortium—Ludwig‑Maximilians‑Universität München (anthropology), Evangelische Hochschule Nürnberg (ethics), Universität Potsdam (informatics), and Karlsruher Institut für Technologie/Rheinisch‑Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (sociology)—to create an ethical orientation instrument for digitally networked environments. Coordinated from the Evangelische Hochschule Nürnberg, the effort ran from early 2019 through late 2020, with a ministerial decision in 2020 to continue the work under an “Integrated Research” framework.

Scientifically, the project focused on mapping the complexity of socio‑technical arrangements and translating that knowledge into a usable guidance tool. In the informatics sub‑project, researchers at Universität Potsdam developed a multi‑dimensional framework to identify, categorize, and quantify complexity‑generating features of digital systems. They constructed a taxonomy of complexity dimensions—such as variety, diversity, and dynamism—and derived metrics that capture both objective technical parameters (source‑code size, architectural choices, technology stack) and subjective user perceptions of complexity. Empirical studies were carried out in parallel with the sociological sub‑project, surveying both designers and users of complex digital systems to assess how perceived complexity varies with interaction type. The resulting data were integrated into a unified model that underpins the orientation instrument.

The ethics sub‑project extended the MEESTAR model, originally conceived for ethical reflection in digital contexts, into a practical handbook. Through a series of four expert workshops (held in Potsdam, EVHN, and virtually in October 2020), scholars from computer science, sociology, and philosophy—including Prof. Dr. Ingo Scholtes, Prof. Dr. Theresa Wobbe, Prof. Dr. Klaus Mainzer, and Prof. Dr. Werner Stegmaier—reviewed the emerging heuristics and interaction scenarios. These workshops validated the instrument’s conceptual foundations, identified gaps, and suggested refinements. A key outcome was the alignment of the instrument’s ethical orientation questions with the empirically derived complexity model, ensuring that guidance is context‑sensitive.

In parallel, the didactic sub‑project, led by Prof. Dr. Ulrike Lucke and collaborators from TU Dresden and Friedrich‑Alexander‑Universität Erlangen, translated the research findings into a pedagogical framework. This effort produced a handbook that combines the MEESTAR‑based orientation tool with didactic strategies for teaching ethics in informatics and engineering. A mediendidaktische study examined how ethical knowledge is acquired and transmitted within these disciplines, organizing “think‑spaces” where disciplinary insights were explicitly compared and integrated.

The project also explored synergies with Dr. Leon Hempel’s 4D‑model of human‑technology interaction. While the 4D‑model focuses on sociological representation of interaction opportunities, the orientation instrument emphasizes explicit ethical decision points. The workshops revealed complementary strengths and identified potential collaborative pathways, though the instruments remain distinct in scope.

Throughout the project, the consortium maintained a modular workflow: initial theoretical clarification (work package 1), empirical data collection (work packages 2 and 3), model integration, and iterative validation through expert workshops. No quantitative performance metrics such as accuracy or usability scores were reported; instead, the success of the instrument is measured by its conceptual coherence, interdisciplinary acceptance, and readiness for deployment on a dedicated website.

In sum, ComplexEthics produced a theoretically grounded, empirically validated ethical orientation instrument that bridges complexity science, anthropology, and ethics. The collaborative structure—spanning four universities and multiple disciplines—ensured that the tool is both scientifically robust and pedagogically actionable, positioning it for continued development under the Integrated Research initiative.