Team Partnerships

Partner: Hassan 

What constitutes the partnership: He acts as a translator while the Lehigh team is are on the ground. He is currently the community mobilizer until we obtain product registration with the pharmacy board, then he will become our distribution manager, reporting data to the Lehigh team.

How did the partner help us/how did we help them: Hassan helped us with translation and country relations. He knows every healthcare worker there is to know in the Bombali district. We gave him money for his work, this helps him support himself and his family.

Was this a symbiotic relationship: It is a symbiotic relationship because we are compensating him for his knowledge and ability to train CHWs for us.

What would help strengthen partnership: I feel that we could compensate him more because he is doing an excellent job and we are only paying him minimum wage. It’s just that our current budget does not allow.

 

Partner: Carrie Jo

What constitutes the partnership: World Hope Consultant on healthcare issues, helped us meet the DMO in 2018 and find data on Koinadugu, Tonkolili, and Bombali districts. She is the CHAMPs project lead, useful to our venture because we can model our venture off of some of the things CHAMPs employs (ex: messaging strategy, made a past radio program).

How did the partner help us/how did we help them: Carrie Jo gave us advice on how our venture can work in Sierra Leone. We help her by adding another project to world hope and she also cares greatly about the issue of maternal mortality, which we are helping solve.

Was this a symbiotic relationship: Carrie Jo wants to improve maternal health in Sierra Leone, was even willing to give up some of World Hopes talk segments to promote our venture. We ask her for advice on how to establish relationships on the ground.

What would help strengthen partnership: I think just information sharing more so we can both improve and optimize the systems/projects we are working on.

 

Partner: Lori Herz

What constitutes the partnership: She gives us laboratory/technology advice for the project.

How did the partner help us/how did we help them: She gives us lab space and materials. She doesn’t get much in return from us, only the updates we have on whats working and what isn’t which could help her own research in bioengineering.

Was this a symbiotic relationship: Not really. We just ask for advice and get lab space. She gets acknowledgment in papers.

What would help strengthen partnership: There isn’t much strengthening to do. I guess being more grateful for the lab space she has given us.

 

Partner: Allieu Bangura

What constitutes the partnership: He assists with operations in Sierra Leone, providing logistical support for Hassan and to champion our product registration application with the Pharmacy Control Board.

How did the partner help us/how did we help them: Allieu pushed our product at the PCB and helps Hassan manage his job of distributing test strips to clinics. He also helps out with getting the test strips from the Freetown port to the WHI Makeni office. We help him by giving him work work assignments, which is what his boss wanted (indirect helping?).

Was this a symbiotic relationship: Symbiotic because Allieu took this project on as part of his paid job responsibilities, and Ukweli benefits from his expertise and knowledge in-country

What would help strengthen partnership: This partnership could be strengthened by Allieu internalizing our venture’s mission more and pushing the PCB and MOHS to procure our test strip nationwide. Ukweli could also strengthen the partnership by providing earmarked funds for his responsibilities with the venture, instead of allowing Ukweli to fall as a side gig to his larger role with WHI.

 

Partner: Saidu

What constitutes the partnership: He makes funding decsions and facilitates decision-making forums.

How did the partner help us/how did we help them: He provides Ukweli team with advice and pushes for decisions to get made in the Makeni World Hope office. We allow him to expand his network and make a greater impact on public health issues in Sierra Leone.

Was this a symbiotic relationship: Yes it is symbiotic because he wants World Hope to have as many projects as possible. We benefit because he makes progress happen with people on the ground in Makeni. He holds people accountable.

What would help strengthen partnership: Communicating with him more frequently through Whatsapp. We have had communication issues in the past but we have slowly discovered that Whatsapp is the best way for updates and communication.

Conceptual Framework

This conceptual framework highlights the three main factors behind the overall goal of impact of GSIF–professors, partnerships and  students. Within each factor, they share common goals with other factors. Everything is interconnected and works together to achieve impact.

 

Since it’s hard to see whats within each, here are the descriptions:

Within students and professors:

  • Hands on/experimental l learning 
  • Relationship building
  • Expanding network
  • Prestige 
  • Expertise

Within professors and partnerships:

  • Research opportunities
  • Knowledge sharing
  • Networking
  • Relationship building

Within students and partnerships:

  • Greater understanding of the world 
  • Cultural diversity
  • Symbiotic relationships
  • Prestige

Blog post 10/29/19

  1. Explain the eight tenets of systems thinking in your own words and provide an example:

 

 

Tenet 1: Interdependence

  • Definition: All systems depend on other systems or subsystems to successfully meet their responsibilities
  • Examples: Solving the issue of high maternal mortality rates in Sierra Leone
    • Safe motherhood team cannot lower rates just by themselves, they rely on the MOH, other healthcare innovations, education, etc.
      • One group cannot solve the entire issue on its own and some ventures or groups can benefit from others and advance their goals because of someone else.
    • The malnutrition team assigned roles for positive interdependence
      • No one can succeed without the rest.

 

Tenet 2: Holism

  • Definition: A system exists as a sum of its parts. None of the parts could ever accomplish the goal that the system can accomplish as a whole.
  • Examples:
    • PlasTech: They need manufacturers, designers, and legal workers who all can come together to create the opportunity to make a profit off of recycling plastics. None of them could ever do it on their own. Our “hq” centralizes the opportunity.
    • Ukweli: we need Hassan, Allieu, World Hope, Wancheng, Lehigh, PHUs, proactive pregnant women to all come together and work towards lowering maternal mortality rates.

 

Tenet 3: Multifinality

  • Definition: The same system can produce varied outcomes/solutions depending on variety of influencing factors
  • Examples:
    • PlasTech: Cleaning up plastic from local neighborhoods and/or preventing plastic from getting into the ocean and/or collecting plastic from companies that would have been thrown into a landfill.
    • Ukweli: What Hassan, Cassidy and Khanjan get out of the experience is different, yet they are all part/ working in the same system.

 

Tenet 4: Equifinality

  • Definition: Similar solutions can be created from different systemic inputs/processes. Opposite of multifinality.
  • Example:
    • Both safe motherhood team and Ukweli want the same end goal–lower maternal mortality rates. However, the teams are trying to achieve it in different ways.

 

Tenet 5: Differentiation

  • Definition: Each independent part is different (in complexity, specialization, focus), but they are all working to reach the overall system goal – they are reliant on each other in order to form the system.
  • Example:
    • Subsystems of the mushroom team- the different subsystems of their mushroom growing process
      • Spawn system
      • Substrate system
      • Mushroom growth system
      • All are independent systems but would never happen without one another
        • They are interdependent

 

Tenet 6: Regulation

  • Definition: Checks and balances that alert failure and success points necessary to understand how to optimize the system. A feedback mechanism for accountability.
  • Examples:
    • Our presentations that we give during the semester
    • Weekly updates with our PI/advisor, ensuring we are on the right track
    • Ukweli: the forms that Hassan uses to track test strip user data with. It ensures he is doing his job properly and is closer to achieving the end goal of reducing maternal mortality.

 

Tenet 7: Abstraction

  • Definition: Systems-level thinking that moves away from little details and towards the bigger picture and how your system is working to affect it.
  • Example:
    • Malnutrition team: Supplements
      • There are tons of different types of iron supplements but some have more side effects (like upset stomach) and some are more expensive. While they first thought, let’s just get the cheapest option to reduce cost, they stepped back and thought that because they are trying to make kids healthier, they need to sacrifice cost for less side effects.

 

Tenet 8: Leverage Points

  • Definition: An aspect in a system that when deciding upon or working with, can ultimately create/lead to large change.
  • Examples:
    • Recipe for malnutrition
      • Changing the definition from one small ingredient can cause good or bad effects
    • Charging a fee for mothers who give birth at home ($5 fine)
      • Encourages the mothers to go to clinics to give birth. None want to pay the fine.

 

 

 

  1. Explain the concept of emergence in simple words. Provide one compelling example of an emergent system that creates (or has created) sustainable and scalable social value.

 

I think that emergence is a way of describing smaller simple components building or working together to produce one large complex concept, goal, behavior or property. An example of this is the community health worker program in Sierra Leone. CHWs are all under the same training by UNICEF, all having similar skillsets. Each CHW gets assigned to assist a specific community. But the entire CHW system works as one under the same goal of improving Sierra Leonean’s livelihoods.

 

 

 

  1. Design a multifinal solution to the water hyacinth problem discussed in class today. Explain the solution and describe how it exhibits the systems tenets of multifinality, holism, and regulation.

 

 

A solution to the water hyacinth problem would be to have the fisherman market to their customers a “dinner kit” or 2 in 1 package deal: fish + briquettes to cook the fish. The venture could sell their briquettes to farmers that are looking to partner with them. The partnership could mean that fishermen get briquettes at a reduced cost (if they buy X amount, they get it at this X reduced rate). People need to cook fish in order to eat it and so they are buying briquettes anyways. Having the farmer sell the fish and the briquettes together makes it more convenient for the customer. The “dinner kit” is likely cheaper than buying the two items separately (because of the partnership), and so the lowered cost entices the customer to buy from that fisherman who offers the kit. Fishermen who don’t choose to be a part of the partnership will likely get fomo and then want to be involved (especially if they aren’t getting as many customers). The partnership can have monthly or weekly touchpoints between the fishermen and the briquette venture to make sure selling strategies are going well/are effective. The touchpoints can also make sure the briquette venture is clearing parts of the river that are helpful to the fishermen, improving their fish yield.

 

Multifinality is exhibited because it’s the same partnership, but what the fishermen and the venture briquette owners get out of it is different. Both have the goal of increasing revenue, but achieve it in different ways. Holism is exhibited because the “dinner kit” can’t exist without both parties. Customers can’t have the convenience and reduced cost of the kit without the two partnering and interacting with each other. Regulation is exhibited because of the weekly touchpoints the partnership has.

Ukweli Collaborative Plan

 

Goals Cassidy: Ensure that the marketing license gets approved so our test strips can be distributed and sold to CHWs and clinic staff around Makeni. Maintain communication with Allieu to ensure he is working and collaborating with the Pharmacy Board. 

Jordan: Solidify funding sources for the team moving forward as a means to comfortably fund operations and Hassan’s salary and help out with logistics as the project moves forward (with our product registration in the near future) and as issues arise. 

Naakesh: Maintain and monitor the interactions between our partners on the ground in Sierra Leone and Lehigh. Optimize Ukweli’s operations while the Marketing License is still being processed. Optimize the con-ops for when the Marketing License gets approved. Identify and address potential failure modes for the venture. 

Rohan: Perform necessary lab work like comparative accuracy results for the test strip. To research and find a company that can perform proper sensitivity and specificity analysis at an absolute level.

Sage: Finish and publish Gabi’s paper. Keep internal budget of project expenses on World Hope end and flag any discrepancies. Searching for funding sources to sustain Ukweli. Government relations with Sierra Leone.

Zach: Create a WhatsApp group to communicate with Community Health Workers and other Ukweli Health Workers to provide them with information on how to market and use the test strips. Another goal is to produce at least 1 article that is published for Engineer 4 Change, which will help publicize Ukweli and help with possible funding plans.

Project Goals/Scale of Goals: One of the shorter term goals for Ukweli is to expand fully throughout the Bombali District. Currently we have the resources to create relationships with PHUs and CHWs by having Hassan travel throughout the district, but further expansion will require more resources.

Metrics of Success: Hassan’s relationships with clinics and CHWs based on the number of test strips sold. The CHW responses we get from Jawaras randomized calling. 

Roles We all depend on each other to succeed. However, there are some roles we have designated on the team based on the team member’s major. For example, Rohan and Naakesh collaborate more closely on the lab and quality control side of operations. We do try to play by strengths and people’s interests for when we assign a task. However, we also like to encourage anyone to take up certain tasks because they can offer a different perspective.

The roles and responsibilities our team typically takes are:

-Naakesh: project management

-Zach: graphic design, marketing and messaging

-Rohan: quality control, assay research & development

-Sage: budgeting, grant writing, research

-Jordan: messaging, grant writing

-Cassidy: device and medical regulations, messaging

Procedures In terms of decision making, Ukweli has generally been able to discuss our plans and then modify them to the point where the whole team can come to a consensus on what to implement. 

The team meetings that we hold are more than doing work on the project. The meetings are more used to discuss steps to take for the immediate future and to update the rest of the team on the progress of individual team member’s work. Zach usually keeps notes on the meeting as a whole, but the rest of the team contributes to note-taking when necessary. The team keeps up good communication through GroupMe where the whole team is responsive to any requests and questions other team members may have. Ukweli utilizes Google Drive for the majority of the teams work so the team can see any changes a team member makes as soon as the changes are made. 

Relationships Our team is fortunate to have built, maintained and sustained solid relationships between the six of us. Each team member not only is committed to the success of the project, but also remains steadfast in supporting one another. No matter what occurs, we are all ready and prepared to jump in and be flexible and do whatever is required to correct or resolve the situation or advance the project. The connections we have developed have allowed us to understand one another in a more personal way outside of the project, which in turn translates to greater chemistry and a smoother experience when doing work related to Ukweli. 

Blog Post 5

Part 1: Ethical Decision-Making

Step 1: Facts of situation
• Neem, indigenous tree in idea, is sacred
• Neem has been used for medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides
• Chetan operates a business of neem products and employs 60 people
• Tom Johnson is the Director of Oregon Organic Pesticide Services (OOPS)
• Tom travelled to India on vacation and discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide
• Tom imported neem seeds to his factory in the USA and ran experimentation where he then developed a formula for an organic pesticide
• Tom’s company invested $5 million to conduct extensive safety and performance tests over the next decade
• Tom’s company got security clearances from the EPA
• OOPS wants to set up a subsidiary business in the rapidly emerging market of India
• He got a patent for the pesticide and made a profit of $12.5 million in a year
• He can sell the product at a lower price than Chetan and reduce his business
• Tom demands a royalty from Chetan

Steps 2/3: Stakeholders and Motivations
1. Chetan
• Wants to make profit on their neem tree products
• Wants to run a stable, successful business that employs local people
2. Environmental Protect Agency (EPA)
• Wants to ensure public health, safety and wellbeing
• Wants to ensure the environment is not at risk of destruction
• No negative environmental consequences occur when pesticides are used
3. Oregon Organic Pesticide Services (OOPS)
• Wants people to buy the pesticide, producing company profit, allowing business to scale and expand
• Wants patent that was filed to be followed and enforced
4. Tom
• Social impact and improving the environment with organic products
• Make profit
• Expand business by tapping into Indian market
5. Indian cottage industries
• Want social mobility
• Want their communities to be profitable/ have good business
6. Farmers
• Want crops that are consistently producing good yields
7. Consumers
• Want a price that is lower cost or the same cost as before
• Want an effective product
8. Indian and US government
• Want to improve local economy
• Responsibility to protect Indian business owners

What rights does Chetan have?
Chetan does not have any legal rights to the neem pesticide products. Once there is a patent on it, he is not legally allowed to sell these products. However, they do have rights to their other products such as skin creams, contraceptives, lamp oil and many other products because these have not been protected by any patents thus far. The company could try to fight back and claim that the patent involved bioprospecting and exploits indigenous forms of knowledge. Unfortunately, the US does not believe that “prior existing knowledge” is enough to reject a patent. The “existing knowledge” is only recognized if it is published in a journal, not if it has been passed down through generations of oral and folk traditions.

Is it ethical for the US company to uphold their patent rights?
Our team believes that it is ethical for OOPS to uphold their patent rights (especially because the p, but it is not moral. They are only taking legal actions, but taking business away from Chetan and on top of that, charging a royalty.

Step 4: Possible solutions
1. Start pushing the other products they manufacturer such as skin creams, contraceptives and lamp oil.
• Ethical or principal code: Duty-based thinking. This solution respects people as ends in themselves.
• Pros: Chetan won’t have to fire employees, they will still have an income, continue to produce profitable neem products.
• Cons: Lose market share because they are losing the pesticide. Business may struggle until other products rise in popularity.

2. Chetan can suggest a merge with OOPS
• Ethical or principle code: Utilitarianism. This solution aims to produce the greatest overall good for all affected.
• Pros: Chetan won’t have to fire employees, CSR for OOPS.
• Cons: Chetan can’t function independently, have to rely on OOPS for decision making

3. Chetan finds loopholes in the US patent. They then choose to alter formula to make it slightly different from what is currently patented by OOPS.
• Ethical or principle code: Virtue. This solution aims to exercise appropriate justice and maintains integrity for Chetan.
• Pros: Produce an environmentally friendly product that is similar to OOPS, won’t have to fire employees.
• Cons: still cannot produce it as cheaply as OOPS.

Step 5: Seek Additional Assistance
https://hbr.org/1996/09/values-in-tension-ethics-away-from-home (This link has an article which talks about core values and the three guiding principles.) http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/alfino/dossier/Papers/COPYRIGH.htm (This link provides in depth information about intellectual property and copyright ethics.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4333627.stm (This link provides information on how India has won a 10-year-long battle at the European Patent Office (EPO) against a patent granted on an anti-fungal product, derived from neem.)

Step 6: Best Plan of Action
Solution 2: Suggest a merge with OOPS
OOPS is able to produce products at a lower cost than Chetan due to economies of scale. Although Chetan technically has rights to products other than pesticides, OOPS could easily get these products patented, and Chetan cannot due to lack of resources. Additionally, even if Chetan finds a loophole in the patent and creates a new formula for pesticides, OOPS will still be able to produce it at a lower cost and Chetan will still lose business. Therefore, it is in Chetan’s best interest to merge with OOPS. This way, Chetan’s employees will still have a job. Chetan and OOPS are not fair competition, and it is not worth it for Chetan to try to compete. Although they won’t be able to function independently, they will be able to still benefit from the venture.

Step 7: What are the implications of your solution on the venture
• The environment and people’s health will likely improve because an organic pesticide will be used
• OOPS is well respected because they chose to partner with another company that improves the livelihood of workers in the Indian cottage industries.
• Chetan is able to have a sustainable business that people look up to/trust because they partner with a US company
• People in the cottage industry have jobs, causing the local economy to improve
• People will have a greater awareness of organic pesticides in India

Part 2: Grassroots diplomacy
Step 1: Facts
• 6 months later, OOPs has 20 different neem-based products being sold in India
• Most successful product is neem-based soap
• Soap wrapper features photo of Tom Johnson
• Chetan’s wrapper features a photo of his great grandfather (local legend)
• Chetan met with Tom Johnson several times and Tom is open to a collaboration
• Chetan’s business is suffering and he’ll have to lay off half his staff
• Half his staff feels cheated by Chetan, and the other half is confident that Chetan will find his way out
Step 2/ 3: Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders
The problem: Chetan needs to figure out a way to keep the business profitable all while protecting staff’s integrity and maintaining their trust.
Stakeholders:
• Chetan:

Personal:Protect his employees, Continue to make money, Maintaining his 7 generation family business
Professional: A successful business

• Tom/OOPS
Personal: Make money
Professional: Expand the business

• Chetan’s employees
Personal: Want the business to continue to be respected and carry the reputation that it has earned for the past few decades
Professional: Want to make money

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture.
Solution 1: partner with Tom Johnson and request that he hire his loyal employees
• Pros: Keeps Chetan’s employees employed, OOPS gains all of Chetan’s loyal customers and therefore makes money
• Difficult to compete with OOPS because it is dominant and more powerful
• Cons: Chetan loses some of the history of his company, Great grandfather will no longer be on the wrappers, Chetan loses the name of his company, Potentially lose Chetan’s employees
• The solution saves face with Chetan’s employees by securing them a job so they can continue to make money.
Implications of relationships:
• Short term: Chetan’s employees may feel like they are being betrayed by Chetan working with an American company
• Long term: eventually the employees will get over their resentments because they are still making money
Implications of venture:
• Short term: collaboration with OOPS
• Long term: Chetan’s business will most likely be completely consumed by OOPS

Solution 2: Dissolve the business and retire as a wealthy man
• Pros: Doesn’t have to compete with OOPS, Retires with money as opposed to losing the rest of it if he continues with an unsuccessful company, Maintains integrity of business and preserves family traditions
• Cons: Disregards all of his employees and changes their opinion of him, Community will dislike him
• This solution saves face with OOPS because he stops competing, but does not save face with the rest of the stakeholders.
Implications of relationships:
• Short term: employees will dislike Chetan
• Long term: employees will still dislike Chetan
Implications of venture:
• Short term: No more income, no more presence in the community
• Long term: The legend of his great-grandfather may be forgotten

Solution 3: Tom uses Chetan’s image on the soap to take advantage of his public image and reputation
• Pros: Chetan could be compensated for using his soap image, Chetan allows the legend of his great-grandfather to live on, Community has a greater trust and respect for OOPS, which will hopefully incentivize them to purchase it
• Cons: The product isn’t a family recipe, it doesn’t fully maintain the integrity of the family brand, More expensive for OOPS to do/more work for them to create a more differentiated product, Where will Chetan’s employees go? Will they work for OOPS?
• The solution saves face for OOPS by making it seem that they didn’t totally exploit Chetan’s family business. They chose to give recognition to local tradition and values.
Implications on relationships:
• Short term: People will remember Chetan’s great-grandfather and its family business origins
• Long term: People may resent Chetan for not having preserving his original family recipe
Implications on venture:
• Short term: Chetan’s employees will have to find work at OOPs or somewhere else
• Long term: Chetan can maintain is brand awareness and recognition, OOPS will gain more business because of their cheap prices and involvement with the local community traditions

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection
Same resources as described in part 1.

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face and has the best short term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class.

I think that solution 1 is the best possible course of action for Chetan. The Chetan family is well off and so their primary concern or source of guilt is what to do with its employees. The partnership with Tom Johnson does not need to be extensive, as long as his employees are well taken care of, the community will be happy. Once OPPS starts to get more comfortable with the partnership, Chetan could propose solution 3 (Chetan’s grandfathers image is on soap) as a way to increase revenue among local buyers. This would solve the issue of how to preserve Chetan’s history and the great-grandfathers legend.

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution.
As Chetan, I would illustrate to Tom Johnson how important his family history is to the local people and how they would be much more likely to purchase his product if he partnered with Chetan. Tom said he was “open to a collaboration if it would help him make more money,” so if Chetan frames the partnership as profit generating, he will likely be able to establish a deal with OOPS. When they are proposing ways for how to go about the partnership, Chetan can suggest the labeling of the great-grandfather.

Fall Blog Post 4

 

Part 1: Ethical Decision-Making

  • Known Facts:
      1. Gruel (maize & banana) does not provide key nutrients
      2. Mothers like them gruel
      3. There are pesticides used on the crops
      4. ~35% of children are nutritionally stunted
      5. Want to transition from breastfeeding at about 24 months
      6.  HIV/AIDS is very prevalent in this region. 
      7. The gruel is integrated into a child’s diet to complement breastfeeding until they are ~24 months of age
      8. The WHO wants women to stop breastfeeding at 6 months
      9.  Mothers in the area firmly believe that the gruel is highly beneficial for their children, but scientific research has shown that it does not provide some key nutrients
      10. The longer a child nurses when the mother is HIV+, the greater the chance that the virus will be transmitted to the child
      11. Mother to Child Transmission of HIV is common
      12. Women’s cooperative grant
      13. Women are skeptical of the porridge
      14. Pesticides used can cause adverse health defects in children
  • Stakeholders
      1. Mothers
      2. Children
      3. Women’s cooperative
      4. WHO
      5. Healthcare system
      6. Local cash crop farmers
      7. Pesticide companies
      8. Donor
  • Motivations
      1. To improve lives, children’s health, support local business
      2. To stop mother to child HIV transmission rates
      3. Improve the nutritional status of children 
      4. Prevent stunted growth
      5. Improve the livelihoods of rural households
      6. Make money off of local crops
      7. To make money
      8. Want the money to support the causes they want and be successful
  • Solutions:
    1. Triage system to diagnose mothers with HIV before birth
        1. Ethical Principle/code: Utilitarian
        2. Pros: HIV can be better monitored for women, helps to ensure that the baby does not get HIV, women who test positive can seek treatment and help stop transmission.
        3. Cons: added task to medical staff who may already be understaffed.
      1. The current solution is: Fortify the current gruel with vitamins and minerals but has a problem with pesticide use, which have potential harmful effects.
        1. Ethical Principle/code: Virtue –  process also matters too
        2. Pros: would sufficiently replace breastfeeding and meet nutrition needs.
        3. Cons: wouldn’t eliminate women’s skepticism. Would still have pesticides that are toxic to consume if not washed and treated properly.
      2. Eliminate crops in the porridge that have a higher risk of pesticide harm i.e. utilize covered crops like pumpkins, bananas for making gruel (crops that naturally have an outer shell/protection layer).
        1. Ethical Principle/code: Utilitarian – the greatest good for the greatest number 
        2. Pros:  Simple, no added cost or big change of process, just strategic utilization of crops
        3. Cons: Fewer nutrients from losing various other foods. Limits the amounts of recipes and combinations you can make.
      3. Create a protocol that people can follow to properly wash crops 
        1. Ethical Principle/code: Virtue
        2. Pros: Helps reduce amounts of pesticides left on crops, creates healthy habits, could prevent ingestion of other harmful types of bacteria left on crops. 
        3. Cons: even with the wash, there may still be pesticides present on the crops, people can get sick if the protocol isn’t followed properly
      4. Look into pesticide chemicals and decide if there are “cleaner” pesticides or more natural methods for getting rid of pests
        1. Ethical Principle/code: Duty
        2. Pros: less toxic pesticides used=not as harmful effects on the body, pests likely won’t destroy crops as much as no pesticide use=higher crop yield. 
        3. Cons: there is already a negative connotation regarding pesticides people may not believe there are “cleaner” pesticides. It could also be difficult to obtain or access clean pesticides.
      5. Recruit specific farmers that practice safer growing w/o pesticides
        1. Ethical Principle/code: Duty
        2. Pros: supports local business and keeps the economy strong in the community, it would eliminate the stigma around having food made with produce grown with pesticides. We could get a deal with a farmer for cheaper prices
        3. Cons: these farmers might not be able to handle the amount of produce required to make the gruel.
  • Seek assistance, as appropriate
      1. https://www.azurihealth.co.ke/
      2. https://www.pan-uk.org/health-effects-of-pesticides/
      3. https://wfto.com/sites/default/files/Gender%20study%20Report%202_WFTO_DEAR%20March%202019.pdf
      4. https://www.aciamericas.coop/IMG/pdf/genderissues.pdf
      5. https://www.trustedclothes.com/blog/2016/10/11/women-africa-power-co-operatives/
  • The best course of action
      1. Combination of 1 & 6 Solutions
        1. Attacks all necessary problems, educates, gives opportunities for more jobs, teaching the mothers the dangers of passing HIV + having safe, nutritious alternative to offer → progress
  • Implications
    1. Women can protect their children.
      1. We would want to start with a small population whose health clinics have the infrastructure, time and money to screen mothers for HIV.
    2. Women will know their HIV status, minimizing the HIV transmission rates.
      1. Provides education on what steps they should take if they have been diagnosed HIV positive.
        1. Better life expectancy and livelihood of the community overall. 
    3. Supporting the local economy
      1. Creates social mobility within community.
      2. Educate farmers on how to grow top quality produce without pesticides.

 

Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy

  • Known Facts:
      1. Business is thriving
      2. Women work for nine hours a day and make about $3
      3. Women save time traveling to market (and $)
      4. Happy with the coop and the sense of identity
      5. Women turn over their money to men in the family
      6. Men waste the money
      7. One of seven members of the leadership council
      8. Have six months left on the committee
      9. Committee wants things to change
      10. A patriarchal society where men have say on money
      11. Though the cooperative is thriving, it is not achieving the twin social outcomes of improving the nutritional status of children and the livelihoods of rural households. 
  • Stakeholders:
    1. Mothers
    2. Children
    3. Women’s cooperative
    4. Local cash crop farmers
    5. Husbands
  • Motivations
    1. Want the money to feed their kids, continue supporting venture
    2. Want to be fed
    3. Improve the nutritional status of children 
    4. Prevent stunted growth
    5. Want the money to buy personal stuff they want
  • Solutions:
      1. The choice to take a certain number of gruel products and $ per day
        1. How does it solve the problem? 
          1. Pros: controls money flow going home, gives women choice to just take food for kids if that’s what they want and is needed
          2. Cons: the husband might be angry that not as much money is coming home
        2. How does it save face of those involved? 
          1. Gives mothers the option to what they want without confrontation with husbands
        3. Implications on relationships 
          1. Short-term: confused husbands, might be frustrated
          2. Long-term: adjusted, even distribution of food for kids and money for family when needed or want it
        4. Implications on the venture 
          1. Short-term:  supports women instantly for wants
          2. Long-term:  further advertise food in local community
      2. Potential Solution: Women receive vouchers instead of money. The vouchers can be used to buy coop food 
        1. How does it solve the problem? 
          1. Pros: Money gets spent on food for the children, women in control of voucher and how it gets spent
          2. Cons: Husband mad that there isn’t any extra money coming in, the voucher can’t be put towards other goods needed (can only get food), does not support women selling food in markets (only within the co op) 
        2. How does it save face of those involved? 
          1. Puts blame of money distribution on the co-op, not the women
        3. Implications on relationships 
          1. Short-term: women are protected from unfortunate consequences
          2. Long-term: animosity and backlash 
        4. Implications on the venture 
          1. Short-term: ensuring women are getting food to feed their children
          2. Long-term: principal-agent problem and company store logic
      3. Potential Solution: Mobile money credit–women are not given cash but rather a phone credit that can only be used by them so men do not have access.
        1. How does it solve the problem? 
          1. Pros: women have full control of the money, not tangible so it can be hidden. They can spend it on food and other items the family needs
          2. Cons: How often do women have their own phone? Will the money be easily accessible to them? 
        2. How does it save face of those involved? 
          1. Lack of accessibility to men can be blamed on the co-op, not the women
        3. Implications on relationships
          1. Short-term: women are protected from unfortunate consequences
          2. Long-term: animosity and backlash
        4. Implications on the venture 
          1. Short-term: ensuring women are getting food to feed their children
          2. Long-term: women need to have cellphones which they may not have all the time depending on income levels per month.
  • Seek assistance:
      1. Classmate discussed about ways you can shame the men. For example, put a pacifier under the bill.
      2. Classmates discussed ways you can save family’s spending receipts:
        1. If you turn them in and show that you are spending responsibly, then you can get a discount or get paid more
          1. Incentives men to make responsible purchases
      3. Khanjan mentioned teaching women how to build equity
        1. Can grow and support further farming operations
  • Best course of action:
      1. I feel that solution 1 (The choice to take a certain number of gruel products and $ per day) is the best possible action because it satisfies both the woman’s desire to feed their children and the needs of the husband to have money.  Women don’t have to have an uncomfortable conversation with their husband about his spending habits because they already have food to feed their children which is all they wanted in the first place. 
  • Implications:
    1.  When the woman turns in her produce from the cooperative, a cooperative staff member then tells her the total value of her crops. The women then gets the choice to how she will split the value of her earning–she can choose to be paid in 60% food and 40% cash or 50% 50% (whatever her needs are for that week). The cooperative then makes the exchange. The variety of produce is from all the other members of the cooperative.

Fall Blog Post 3

Grassroots Diplomacy Case 2: Sept 10

 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible

  • Jack is american 
  • Kids is in charge of handing out gifts 
  • The staff have not acknowledged the problem, they think it’s a “trivial” matter 
  • The 4 kids who received hats are angry at Jack 
  • Jack wants the kids to like/trust him
  • Jack will be in Kenya for 5 months
  • Jack works at a youth center working on a social venture 
  • The kids think the gifts were from Jack because he was assigned to give them out
  • There weren’t enough gifts for all of the kids
  • The staff members want Jack to solve the “problem”
  • All the gifts were labeled and assigned to the kids 

 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome 

  • The kids
  • Jack
  • The youth center staff

 

Step 3: Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders.

  • The kids (that did not get gifts)
    • Personal-
      • They want gifts that were given ceremoniously
      • They want the attention from the ceremony 
  • The kids (who got gifts)
    • Personal-
      • They got great gifts and probably want to show it off
      • They want to feel special
  • Jack
    • Professional-
      • Jack wants to have a good relationship with the kids because he will be working at the youth center for five months
      • Jack wants a good relationship with the staff, doesn’t want things to escalate unnecessarily 
    • Personal-
      • Wants to be seen as a good person
      • Doesn’t want to feel guilty, wants to be able to sleep at night knowing kids don’t hate him

 

  • The youth center staff
    • Professional-
      • They want to keep their reputation 
      • Want Jack to not create unnecessary problems

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions

 

Approach 1: Utilitarian 

  • Potential solution: By doing the ceremony for most of the kids you have already satisfied the majority of them while still providing a substitute for the kids who were not able to receive the main gifts. Jack should not take any additional action as what was previously done was enough.
  • How does it solve the problem: Essentially using this solution means that there really wasn’t a problem. Sometimes things are unfortunate, but it’s not worth the time and effort to address the mistake, rather just go about your daily tasks, the kids will soon forget that day. Using time and resources on this side-project takes away from the end goal as a whole. 
    • Pros:
      • No additional time or money cost, in agreement with the staff of the center
      • The Staff does not have to “deal” with jack 
    • Cons: 
      • Kids could hold a grudge, and could emotionally weigh on Jack
      • Jack would be upset 
  • How does it save face for those involved: It saves Jack’s face to the youth center staff as he is now in agreeance with them, its doesn’t save his face to the 4 kids that only got hats
  • Implications:
    • Short Term: The children who were forgotten are still upset. The staff is content with the situation No resources used up for the children, saved for the project
    • Long Term: Hopefully the children will forget. Kids could hurt the project, but money and time are saved

 

Approach 2: Deontology 

  • Potential solution: Go out on your own and purchase gifts and give them to the kids who got left out and hold a little ceremony.
  • How does it solve the problem: The kids who were left out now get gifts presented to them in a special way. They not don’t feel as left out and now have more trust in Jack.
    • Pros: 
      • the kids who were left out are now happy and think of Jack in a positive way
    • Cons: 
      • Money (to purchase more gifts), time (you have to hold an additional ceremony), effort (to find those four kids and plan when you will give them the gift)
      • Makes the staff look bad 
  • How does it save face for those involved: Jack makes it up to the left out kids and makes them feel equally as important as the other kids did. Jack emotionally feels less guilty and awkward. 
  • Implications:
    • Short term: Kids trust Jack. Awkward with youth center staff because they didn’t see it as a problem
    • Long term: The problem will happen again, there’s no system in place or no guarantee that this won’t happen again and it will be up to Jack to make the situation “right” to himself

 

Approach 3: Absolutism 

  • Everyone either must get a gift or everyone does not get a gift 
  • Potential solution: Because it would be worse for Jack to go and take the gifts back from all the other children his only option to make all experiences equal again would be to take it upon himself to organize another gift ceremony for the four kids who did not receive the main gift before. 
  • How does it solve the problem: In doing this and taking the black hats back, the kids would feel as though they were given the same emotional and material satisfaction as the others.
    • Pros: 
      • Everyone is on the same level again; equality
      • No one is left out
    • Cons:
      • Is a large undertaking requiring more time ands money from Jack 
      • Staff might get upset he is making a big deal out of it 
      • Other kids could get upset that they are not getting gifts this time around 
  • How does it save face for those involved:
    • All the kids are now on the same level and no one feels left out in the long run. The kids who were given this other ceremony would likely trust Jack a lot more because he went out of their way for them. However, the staff might be initially upset he went to such lengths to fix a relatively small issue.
    • Implications:
      • Short term: Kids are satisfied. Staff might be a little upset.
      • Long term: Will not fix the underlying problem and would set a precedent for Jack  to keep fixing the mistakes. Staff would likely distrust Jack going forward. Kids would probably see him better.

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate 

  • We all agreed and felt that approach 1 was the most appropriate. We have all done fieldwork in Sierra Leone and know that there’s no system in place or no guarantee that this won’t happen again.  

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action

  • Approach 1:
    1. Jack does nothing 
    2. Kids will forget
    3. Staff doesn’t see it as a problem, don’t want to make relationship more awkward

 

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution

  • Nothing, let it go, move on

Fall Blog Post 2

International Research Ethical Decision-Making Case 1: Sept 3

Q:  Is it ethical to conduct this research study? What will you do next?

A:

  • What would make it fair?
    • Informed consent, benefits the people, benefits outweigh risks
  • Why would it not be fair?
    • Payment for time
      • How do you decide who gets paid and when they get paid?
    • After your findings, you don’t do anything to address the problem

 

Step 1—What do we know:

  • There is a disease-causing pathogen in the water
  • Chemical additives can make the water safe
  • You are in a developing setting
  • You need many people involved in your research
  • We are interested in where they store water and where they get it from

 

Step 2—Stakeholders:

  • Researchers
  • Community members
  • Publishers
  • Government of Lesotho
  • Grant funder
  • Healthcare providers

 

Step3—Motivations:

For Researchers:

  • Clout
  • Money
  • Impact
  • The need to make a difference
  • Prestige
  • Professional pressure
  • Love of science
  • Personal tie to the country of Lesotho

 

For Point Community Members:

  • Their own health
  • Willingness to work with a foreigner
  • Money

 

For Publishers:

  • Contributing to the greater understanding of science
  • Sell copies/money
  • Clout
  • Cutting-edge

 

For Government of Lesotho:

  • Public safety
  • Votes
  • Tax payer money
  • Good foreign relationships

 

For Grant Funder:

  • Money is well spent
  • Good record
  • Remain reputable
  • Clout

 

For Healthcare Providers:

  • More medical knowledge
  • Better treat/care for community members

Step 4—three solutions

 

Solution 1 – Pay the community members for their time and fuel (in cold hard cash $$$$$)

  • Ethical principle/code – duty-based
  • Pros – good relations, engaging with the community, relationship-building
  • Cons – costly, spending unnecessary money (?), difficulty in ensuring fairness in pay (could lead to future complications), may need to pay everyone every time for everything, how do you compensate?

 

Solution 2—Compensate community members in means other than cold hard cash (ex: food or dinner)

  • Ethical principle/code – virtue-based
  • Pros – save money but still give feeling of reward for their time, easier to decipher (no raw statistical calculation)
  • Cons – anything other than money means nothing, food allergies, no calculation so how do you know you’re being fair

 

Solution 3 – Don’t pay or compensate for anything

  • Ethical principle – consequence-based
  • Pros – get the job done with expending as little resources as possible, maximize the grant money, allocate funds for other priorities/expenses
  • Cons – risk alienating the people you need most, people pissed off and backfiring, bad reputation, people not accommodating for your research needs because of lack of compensation

 

Step 5— We all have a personal experience in Sierra Leone where the people we worked with were compensated with money. This seemed to work well and people were happy to work with us.

 

Step 6 – Pay community members with money $$$$$$ for their time, knowledge and fuel with clear boundaries/contracts for terms and conditions of the amount of pay

  • We chose this because our research team values quality data. Our main reason for traveling so far is to obtain great data and therefore we cannot risk or work with people who are uncooperative.
  • 1st step: Determining the average pay of community members in the workforce
    • This will help us calculate hourly time spent or how much we should pay someone for a task
  • 2nd step: Mileage, wear and tear of car and determining rates based on what people currently pay

 

Step 7— Paying people will hopefully cause community members to prioritize our work. However, now they may have the assumption that foreigners who come to their country will always pay them for their time/knowledge. To prevent this from happening, we need to make it clear with people about our intentions and reasoning for paying. We also will choose the people that we work with wisely by involving stakeholders (ex: ministry of health) who can provide us with a list of point contacts that they feel are trustworthy and diligent.

 

Fall Blog Post 1

  1. What are the top three things you learned during your GSIF trip this summer?
    1. We can’t have CHWs charge women for screening. This was crucial for our venture and its success because we need to keep it self sustaining.
    2. How to work effectively with my team. I became extremely familiar with peoples strengths and weaknesses which allowed for better collaboration. We spent so many of the hours of the day together, I’m surprised we didn’t end up killing each other at the end. I did learn a lot about friendship too, and how we all had such varying experiences at Lehigh but yet found so much common ground.
    3. I learned a lot about priorities and how they truly do matter if you want to get someones attention or help with something. You must present yourself and your needs in a certain way that will allow others to want to help you.
  2. How did the GSIF trip facilitate your professional development?
    1. I think it contributed to my leadership skills. People often came to me for advice or guidance on how to go about issues, whether it related to their team dynamic or logistical problems within their project. Having past experience in Sierra Leone, I felt I was able to provide people with help to the best of my knowledge.
    2. The trip pushed me to engage and network with many different types of people–some illiterate, some old and young. Networking is everything now and days and I think it was an excellent skill for me to work on especially because I will be entering the work force soon.
    3. I learned how to hire an employee at the age of 21! Who can say they did that? I helped develop an employee contract, find transportation and job materials and train him to ensure he does a proper/effective job.
  3. How did the GSIF trip help you grow personally?
    1. I learned to become a more patient person. I realized that my expectations for how things are going to work, run or move often do not meet reality. Being in a different context and working extremely close with someone not from the US really allowed me to explore this and forced me to work through  the frustration I often felt.
    2. Not take things personally. Things change quickly and expectations aren’t always met. Don’t take it out on yourself or things too close to heart because they can change in an instant.
    3. Be confident in what you know. Take responsibility for what you’ve done and what you are trying to do. If you don’t believe in what you are doing, it won’t work and you can fall in a downward spiral of negative thinking and doubt.