Breathe Almaty

Location: Almaty Kazakhstan

1. AlmaU – formed
2. Haileybury – formed
3. Lingnan University – formed
4. Other high schools – could be formed
5. Manufacturer or any type of association in Almaty – could be formed

 

Describe at least 5 partnerships with individuals and/or organizations that have been formed, or could be formed, to advance your venture. Please identify partnerships at the individual, team, and Lehigh / SIF level.

1. AlmaU – formed
2. Haileybury – formed
3. Lingnan University – formed
4. Other high schools – could be formed
5. Manufacturer or any type of association in Almaty – could be formed

 

1. What constituted the partnership?
   1. AlmaU – academic partners
   2. Haileybury – participants in our study
   3. Lingnan – made air filter prototypes
   4. Other high school – more participants for study
   5. Manufacturer – mass produce parts for filters and monitors

 

1. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
   1. AlmaU – allowed us to connect with other students who are also interested in our mission
   2. Haileybury – Allowed us to begin our experiment and test their students
   3. Lingnan – allows us to further our study on cognitive ability
   4. Other high school – further prove our hypothesis
   5. Manufacturer – allow the public to buy filters and monitors

 

1. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
   1. AlmaU – symbiotic because AlmaU students are bridging us with Almaty and working in every part of our project and, in return, they are credited for their works
   2. Haileybury –  symbiotic because Haileybury students are participating in our study and a group of students and teachers are working with us on every aspect of our project
   3. Lingnan – symbiotic because we are showing the efficacy of their filter 
   4. Other high school – symbiotic because we would be showing them how to improve their cognitive ability
   5. Manufacturer – symbiotic because they would be making profit
2. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
   1. AlmaU –  AlmaU students getting more schools to partner with us for the cognitive study 
   2. Haileybury – Assigning tasks to the students based on their interests for our project
   3. Lingnan – Getting more data analysis on how effective the filter is 
   4. Other high school – asking what they need so that can best assist them 
   5. Manufacturer – Knowing the best strategy for purchasing components(if in purchase in bulk or not)

 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1tbdAa4Rt-lh9VuxAuypfoVY1LIhDIgfMrNZLn4YpvuQ/edit#slide=id.p1

 

Part 1: Ethical Decision Making

 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue. 

 

1. 35% of children in the region suffer from stunted growth
2. Traditional gruel does not provide key nutrients
3. Grant provides sufficient funds
4. Gruel made from corn maize and bananas is introduced at 2 months
5. Pesticides used to grow crops used in the porridge could potentially result in health implications for infants 
6. Many women in the area are HIV positive 
7. Most mothers believe that 24 months of breastfeeding is necessary
8. The longer children breastfeed, the more likely they are to contract HIV. 
9. 500 women from three contiguous sub-locations have indicated their interest in joining the cooperative, in hopes of improving their livelihoods

 

Step 2 and 3: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome and Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders 

1. Mothers and children: primary stakeholders as they are directly affected by nutritional choices.
   1. Motivations:
      1. Mothers wish to provide their children with the most nutritious diet available. Whether that is the combination of breastfeeding and gruel or breastfeeding and porridge.
      2. Mothers do not want to transmit HIV to their children
2. Pesticide Sellers and producers: secondary stakeholder
   1. Motivations: they want to make money and continue selling
3. Healthcare Providers: Those who are treating the women and children in the region. 
   1. Motivations: 
      1. Want to prevent the transmission of HIV, promote healthy infant development, and provide quality care to their community
4. Farmers – Growing the crops used in the porridge
   1. Motivation: 
      1. Want to produce crops and get paid for them
5. Government: departments that might be providing support
   1. Motivation: 
      1. Aim to improve youth and overall well being of the community
6. The funders that sent the grant to start the women’s cooperative
   1. Motivations: don’t want the money to go to waste 

 

The ethical issue in this case is whether it :  Is it okay to substitute current breastmilk supplements with a new contaminated supplement if it is meant to ultimately decrease children’s exposure to HIV? 

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as guide Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] • Potential solution • Ethical Principle or code • Pros • Cons 

1. Alternative Solution 1: Implement an HIV testing service for expecting and breastfeeding mothers. If they test positive, then they should put their infants onto the porridge treatment, whereas if they are negative, maintain the status quo. 
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Consequence-based thinking
   2. Pros: 
      1. Only exposed to pesticides if HIV is a threat. 
      2. More people are made aware of their HIV status, allowing better treatment regimens to be followed. 
      3. Less likely infants will contract HIV. 
   3. Cons: 
      1. Money is split between two initiatives, so both may never be fully developed to their full potential. 
      2. Farmers are paid less since less crops are used. 
      3. How far can this really go? What would the start and end be?
2. Alternative Solution 2: Stop growing crops with pesticides
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Consequence-based thinking
   2. Pros: 
      1. Ingredients are no longer harmful to children. Children have a decreased chance of contracting HIV. 
   3. Cons: 
      1. Increased pests in cash crops, leading to a smaller harvest, less food for the community, and less income for the farmers. 
3. Alternative Solution 3: Use the grant money to research methods of growing crops without pesticides
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Duty-based thinking and consequence-based thinking 
   2. Pros:
      1. Crops are grown without pesticides
      2. Farmers continue to have a high yield
      3. Infants are less prone to contracting HIV
   3. Cons:
      1. May require significant time and resources
      2. Could take lots of time for farmers to adapt to new practices
      3. May or may not work 
4. Alternative Solution 4: Engineer the product’s processor to remove pesticides
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Virtue-based thinking
   2. Pros: 
      1. There is a nutritious supplement without pesticides 
      2. Farmers continue to make money on their crops
      3. Infants are less exposed to HIV
   3. Cons:
      1. Maybe hard to produce on a large scale
      2. Less profitable
      3. Cooperative gets too big and you have more distrust which leads to it all falling apart

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

 

According to the National Pesticide Information Center, removing the majority of pesticide residues is easy to do. While there is no method that is 100% effective, most residues can be removed from washing or heating the crops. 

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class. 

• Solution: Engineer the product’s processor to remove pesticides
  • How does the decision minimize risk for everyone:
    • Infants and mothers are exposed to less pesticides and HIV overall. 
  • How does it compare to other approaches
    • It allows for local businesses to be profitable while also protecting stakeholders from illnesses. Other solutions would have required producing less product, which would ultimately harm the farmers’ revenues and the nutritional health of the population. 

 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

• Impact of the venture:
  • Technological: Would have to develop an engineering solution to effectively remove pesticides during processing. 
  • Social: There would be no stigma associated with the new product, e.g., hesitancy to use a product that only HIV positive individuals purchase. 
  • Economic: Farmers would draw more revenues, but the cooperation would be less profitable. 
  • Environmental: More energy and resources would be required to remove pesticides. Also, farmers would continue to grow their crops with pesticides which are likely bad for the environment. 

 

Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy Strategy

 

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

1. Women work 9 hours a week and earn about $3
2. Women enjoy working together and are happy with the cooperative
3. Cooperative members have the opportunity to sell produce from their small farms to the cooperative which provides them more income
4. Cooperative arrangement saves women time and money
5. Significant issue with women being required to turn over money to their husbands who often misuse the money
6. Committee overseeing the cooperative upset with the situation but dont think change is possible 
7. Women upset that the food is not reaching the children
8. Six months left until you leave the cooperative completely 

 

Step 2 and Step 3 : Define the problem and the stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome. Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders. 

 

Problem Statement: Women are successfully earning an income to support their family, however, once their husbands are in control of their finances, it is not put towards family development. 

 

1. Me
   1. Personal Motivation: Personal engagement with the project, ethical opinion in the situation
   2. Professional Motivation: Reflects on my credibility and ability to get more resources in the future
2. Cooperative members (women)
   1. Personal Motivations: Want financial independence, better living conditions, and be able to spend the money on the well being of their children
   2. Professional Motivations: Want to contribute to the cooperative and be active community members
3. Cooperative leadership team
   1. Personal Motivations: Advocating for the rights of the women/cooperative members and address social inequalities
   2. Professional Motivations: Ensuring the cooperatives sustainability
4. Children
   1. Personal Motivations: want to eat nutritious food 
5. Men who are responsible for their wives’ income 
   1. Personal Motivations: Use the money received from their wives for personal interest such as alcohol and frivolous things 
   2. Professional Motivations:

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture. 

Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] • Potential Solution • How does it solve the problem? o Pros o Cons • How does it save face of those involved? • Implications on relationships o Short-term o Long-term • Implications on the venture o Short-term o Long-term 

 

• Engage the men
• Find a way to store the money and make it available to the women at certain times

 

1. Solution 1: Pay the Women in food (or whatever they ask for) with a little money on the side. 
   1. How does it solve the problem?
      1. It provides women with what they need while still providing the family with money to keep the husbands happy 
   2. Pros: 
      1. Women get essentials
      2. Women are able to provide food for children
   3. Cons: 
      1. Could become more expensive 
      2. It is more difficult to gauge fair wage/food distribution among workers 
   4. How does it save face?
      1. Husbands believe their wives are receiving money, so it does not seem like you are undermining them. Also, the rest of the board believes a
   5. Implications on relationships
      1. Keeps husbands happy (hopefully)
   6. Implications on venture
      1. Short term: Will be more expensive for the Venture
      2. Long term: Could strengthen the community

 

1. Solution 2:  Vouchers instead of cash
   1. How does it solve the problem?
      1. This could be seen as a short term solution because it could quickly turn bad (there are more cons the more you think about it)
   2. Pros: 
      1. Can use the voucher to purchase food
      2. Eliminates risk of husband taking all the money
   3. Cons: 
      1. How do you know that the women will buy nutritious food?
      2. Which food provider would the voucher work for?
      3. Could lead to black market
   4. How does it save face?
   5. Implications on relationships
      1. Short term: Husbands upset that they are no longer receiving money
      2. Long term: Bigger void between relationships/family
   6. Implications on venture

 

1. Solution 3: Educational workshops 
   1. How does it solve the problem?
      1. Educates the community on financial decisions and encourage healthy spending habits
   2. Pros:
      1. Fosters a sense of equality within households
      2. Might encourage cooperative members  to allocate the earnings for the family
   3. Cons: 
      1. Will see resistance from men
      2. Required a lot of time and resources to create program
   4. How does it save face?
      1. By promoting joint decision-making, this solution respects the roles and opinions of both men and women within the community. It avoids directly challenging traditional gender roles.
   5. Implications on relationships
      1. Short term: Some resistance and tension may arise
      2. Long term: There could be improved communication
   6. Implications on venture
      1. Short term: Venture may take a hit as they have to provide time and money to create the program
      2. Long term: It could strengthen the community

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

 

• 78.3% of malnourished children recovered as a result of a food voucher program in Cameroon. This shows that if people are paid in food either directly or indirectly, proper nutrients are able to make their way into households (NIH) 

 

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. 

• Solution 1: Pay the Women in food (or whatever they ask for) with a little money on the side. 
  • Reasoning: We decided this was the best  solution because it allows the women to continue bringing back money to their husbands while also providing them with nutritious food for their children. 
  • Other Solutions posed more problems in the long term

 

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

1. Seek input:
   1. First speak to the women and get input on how they would feel about the change
   2. Frame that it is not changing gender roles or the culture and explain it’s just better for the company
2. Get the men on board and get them to see the value
3. Identify Community leaders 
   1. Get them on board ahead of time
4. Individual conversations with other 6 board members

 

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

Facts: 

1. Jack is an American student who lives at a youth center in Kenya working on a social venture
2. An international donor organization sent presents for children under 14 years old
3. Jack is chosen to hand out gifts to the kids at the youth center which makes the kids think Jack got the gifts himself
4. Four kids did not receive gifts and were given hats that were at the bottom of the gift boxes but were upset since they did not receive a gift originally 
5. Jack met with the staff to discuss the situation that the kids who did not receive gifts originally were upset and felt left out
6. The staff did not care about the problem and told Jack to solve it himself 

 

Step 2: Define the problem and the stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome 

Problem: Four kids are upset that they did not receive ceremonial gifts like the other children, and Jack is blamed for the incident. The youth center staff say that Jack is making a big deal out of a trivial matter and do not help him resolve the misunderstanding.

Stakeholders:

1. Jack
2. Youth center staff
3. Kids who live at the youth center
4. International donor organization 

 

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

Motivation of Stakeholders:

1. Jack: 
   1. Wants to build good relationships with the kids that live in the youth center
   2. Wants to maintain a good relationship with the staff at the youth center
   3. Wants to be able to work on his social venture
2. Youth center staff: 
   1. Want to maintain a good image for the kids who live in the youth center and ensure everything runs smoothly
   2. Want to maintain a good relationship with their international donor 
3. Kids who live at the youth center: 
   1. Want to be treated equally and fairly 
4. International donor organization: 
   1. Want to provide underprivileged children with donations 

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on the information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture. 

Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action] 

Potential Solution 1: Next time, communicate with the international donor organization to let them know how many children are expecting gifts

• How does it solve the problem? 
  • Pros: This allows for all the kids to get a gift.
  • Cons: May seem rude to the donor organization or seem like the youth center is not grateful for the gifts that they have received. Donor organizations may not have the capacity to gift gifts to all of the children. 

• How does it save face of those involved? 
  • The children feel acknowledged as they received a gift that was not the hat 
• Implications on relationships 
  • Short-term: The relationship between Jack and the children is improved
  • Long-term: The donor may not want to provide gifts in the future

• Implications on the venture 
  • Short-term: The children are content and all receive gifts
  • Long-term: The relationship between the center and the international donor is strained, because the donor feels that the center is not grateful for the donations that they have received. In the future, the international donor decides to halt relations with the center

 

Potential Solution 2: Jack communicates with the children that the incident was not his doing

• How does it solve the problem? 
  • Pros: This clears up the misunderstanding and the children will not be upset with Jack
  • Cons: The youth center staff would be upset that the blame is now on them

• How does it save face of those involved? 
  • Jack clears up his reputation with the children, and the children feel acknowledged 
• Implications on relationships 
  • Short-term: Relationship with the children at the center strengthens
  • Long-term: Jack’s relationship with the staff at the center becomes strained, and they may not treat him the best going forward

• Implications on the venture 
  • Short-term: Will make the children happy 
  • Long-term: Jack’s relationship with the staff at the center is strained. The staff no longer trust him and believe he is causing unnecessary problems at the center

 

Potential Solution 3: Jack buys more gifts and speaks to the staff about how they labeled the gifts so they could count if there were enough gifts for all of the kids 

• How does it solve the problem? 
  • Pros: There would be a sufficient amount of gifts for all of the kids, so none of them feel left out
  • Cons: Jack would have to spend his own money and time to go out and buy more gifts

• How does it save face of those involved? 
  • The children would be happy because they all have a gift, and Jack’s relationship with them would be restored. Jack saves face to the children because he no longer looks like the bad guy but is instead seen as a hero to them because he gets them gifts
  • The staff at the center are not exposed for being the ones responsible for not giving gifts to the children
• Implications on relationships 
  • Short-term: The relationship between Jack and the children at the center is strengthened. The relationship between Jack and the center staff may still be tense because he went against their suggestion to let the situation go
  • Long-term: Jack can build strong relationships with the children, but the staff believe he is a “children’s rights activist” and are not fond of him

• Implications on the venture 
  • Short-term: The children are happy
  • Long-term: Jack cannot continue to buy gifts for the children who do not receive gifts from donors, or when Jack leaves, no one else is able to buy gifts for the children and the original issue persists. 

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

• Young children often forget things quickly, so they may move on from the situation without intervention
• Is Jack’s relationship with the children more valuable, or is his relationship with the staff at the center more valuable?
  • The relationship with the staff is probably more valuable because they have more power than the children at the center
  • Jack is there to work on his social venture, so building a strong relationship with influential people will be beneficial to him

 

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. 

Propose the distribution of the hats in the same ceremonial fashion as the other gifts to the staff. This would make the children happy, while eliminating the issue of Jack feeling like the blame was thrown on him, and is clear communication between Jack and the staff at the youth center. This is a course of action that only requires a behavioral change, rather than a materialistic one, so it is fairly easy to execute and does not require the purchasing of more gifts, which may be costly. In the short-term, the kids will be happy with the gifts that they receive, even those that received hats because the ceremony would have made them feel special regardless of the actual gift. In the long term, Jack’s relationship with the children is maintained. Regarding the relationship between Jack and the youth center staff, there may be some disagreement because they would believe that Jack is making a big deal out of an issue that shouldn’t exist. However, this solution only requires a small behavior change and avoids blame being placed on anyone involved, so they may be receptive to the solution. Because of this, we hope that the relationship between the staff and Jack also remains stable in the long term. 

 

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

1. Confront the staff and let them know that you observed some kids were upset they did not receive a ceremony for their gift
2. Propose the solution of mixing in a ceremony for all kids, regardless of what gift they are going to receive
3. Hear out what the staff have to say, if they are receptive to the solution then implement it. If not, do nothing and stick with the original plan, having Jack take the blame
4. If Jack takes the blame, his relationship with the children becomes strained in the short term but is quickly resolved once the kids move on from the situation
5. The children forget about the whole gift situation, the donor-youth center relationship is maintained, and Jack lives with no issues in the youth center

Case 

Lesotho is a small developing country contained within South Africa. You and your team of academic researchers (10 in all) are spending the next two weeks traveling to different communities throughout Lesotho to test water sources for disease-causing pathogens. The testing you need to do is simple but requires significant assistance from the community – showing your team all the different locations where individuals get their water from, and places/methods for storing the water. You do not see the need to pay the community members, considering if someone asked you about your water source, you would not mind driving them up to the lake! The ultimate goal of the project is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of a specific pathogen, which is found only in this region of Lesotho. Several publications are expected from this research study. A comprehensive profile of this pathogen can help in many ways including the development of chemical additives to make the water safe to drink. 

Facts:

1. Lesotho is a small developing country in South Africa
2. Testing the water for the disease-causing pathogen found only in Lesotho
3. Testing is simple but requires assistance from the community
4. Community members are solely volunteers in this research
5. Ultimate goal is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen

Stakeholders

1. Researchers
2. The community members
3. The local government authorities
4. The local scientific authorities
5. The Scientific company funding the research project

Motivation of Stakeholders

1. Researchers: To understand the lifecycle and characteristics of the pathogen
2. The community members: to have access to clean/safe water
3. The local government authorities: regulate water
4. The local scientific authorities: understand the pathogen more
5. The Scientific company funding the research project: to possibly publish studies on the pathogen

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

Identifies ethical issue

 

Yes, it is ethical to conduct this research because it is not human subjects in question so no harm is being done to any humans or the environment, but rather the intention is to make the lives of the community members better through the provision of clean and safe drinking water. 

Compensating the community members who decide to take part in the research will be good. Not compensating them will have no effect on whether it is ethical or not.

 

Next steps:

1.Community engagement- Involve the community members so that they feel like they are a part of the process that will make them lead healthier lives.

2.Pay the people money for travel and their ‘time’

3.Active community engagement

 

Potential Solution: Researchers actively engage with the community, involve them in research design, and share benefits of the research.

 

Ethical Principle or Code: Respect for Autonomy, Beneficence, and Community Involvement.

 

Pros: Builds trust, ensures community input, empowers the community, aligns with ethical principles.

 

Cons: Requires additional time and effort in community engagement, may increase project complexity.

 

Approach 3: Long-Term Community Benefits

 

Potential Solution: Researchers commit to providing long-term benefits to the community based on research findings, such as improved water quality or healthcare services.

 

Ethical Principle or Code: Beneficence and Non-Maleficence.

Pros: Ensures lasting positive impact, addresses community needs, promotes sustainability.

Cons: May require ongoing support and resources, necessitates follow-up actions.

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate.

 

Consult with ethics committees, research ethics guidelines, and experts in research ethics to ensure alignment with best practices.

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action.

 

The best course of action is Approach 2: Active Community Engagement.

 

Justification:

 

This approach respects the autonomy of the community by involving them in decision-making.

It aligns with the principles of justice and fairness by actively engaging with the community and ensuring they have a say in the research process.

It empowers the community and fosters trust, which can lead to more meaningful and ethical research outcomes.

It addresses the ethical concerns raised by the community’s involvement in the research.

 

Vis-a-vis Other Approaches:

 

While “Fair Compensation” (Approach 1) addresses the issue of compensation, it may not fully address the ethical concerns related to community engagement and empowerment.

“Long-Term Community Benefits” (Approach 3) is commendable, but it may not be immediately feasible or sustainable without active community involvement.

 

In conclusion, active community engagement (Approach 2) is the most ethical course of action in this scenario. It respects the community’s autonomy, promotes fairness, and empowers the community while addressing their concerns and ensuring meaningful participation in the research.

 

When conducting the research,what else should you think about?

1. Language barrier, there may not be terms for specific topics (or different terms)
2. Impact of your research. Positively or negatively
3. Community Engagement and Collaboration: Building trust and positive relationships with the local communities is crucial. 
4. Cultural Sensitivity: Be aware of and respect the local culture, customs, and traditions. Cultural sensitivity can play a significant role in the success of your research and the acceptance of your team within the communities.
5. Environmental Impact: Assess and minimize any environmental impact your research activities may have, such as waste disposal and the use of chemicals for water testing.
6. Long-Term Sustainability: Consider the long-term sustainability of your research efforts and how the findings can benefit the communities beyond the duration of your project. This could involve capacity building or knowledge sharing.
7. Community Health Education: Alongside your research, conduct health education programs within the communities to raise awareness about waterborne diseases and safe water practices. This can empower residents to take steps to protect their health.

 

      

 

Ethical Decision-Making Methodology 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue. 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – Researchers, community members, funders,  those with a vested interest in the outcome 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders-

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as a guide 

Approaches [1/2/3: repeat for every action]

• Potential solution 
• Ethical Principle or code 
• Pros 
• Cons 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class

PROMPT #1:

• Identify the three specific stakeholder groups most impacted by your project. For each one, go through the five elements of framework #2 and identify different answers for each group. In other words, if you’re telling your story to stakeholder group #1 (let’s say, middle school students), what is the context that would be most meaningful to that group? What is the catalyst most meaningful to that group? And so on.

• Stakeholder#1: citizens of Almaty
  • Context: air pollution is decreasing their health and they must start taking preventative measures
  • Catalyst: citizens need to be cautious of the air pollution each day
  • Complication: many citizens don’t care or don’t know about how harmful it is
  • Change: spread awareness about free preventative measures they can take
  • Consequence: the resolution is for citizens to avoid highly polluted areas as much as possible
• Stakeholder#2: air quality and monitor makers 
  • Context: only upper class citizens are able to afford monitors and filters
  • Catalyst: we are bringing cheap monitors and filters to the market in Almaty
  • Complication: only expensive ones are on the market right now
  • Change: we bring our monitors and filters and make an assembly shop in Almaty
  • Consequence: all citizens can afford monitors and filters
• Stakeholder#3: study participants: Haileybury students
  • Context: students have low impact on society as their thoughts and actions are often neglected
  • Catalyst: students are working on this project together to improve their environment
  • Complication: in addition to opposing social expectation, they will have to juggle between academics and project work
  • Change: influence and urge their community to take actions and look beyond social norms
  • Consequence: impact their environment and improve the air quality

 

PROMPT #2:

• From the two story frameworks, CHOOSE ONE of them. Doesn’t matter which – choose the one that speaks to you more, or choose randomly. Once you’ve chosen one framework, ignore the other one for this prompt.
• As a team, write the story of your project (as it exists today), using the five story elements in the order in which they are given, #1 through #5. Each element’s section should consist of at least 2-3 carefully constructed sentences. 
• The result should be a coherent, beginning-middle-end story about your project which someone of reasonable intelligence who is unfamiliar with your project can follow and understand, and more importantly, be inspired by. The blog entry should be written as a text-based story, not a bulleted list. You should write it as a first-person plural story – in other words, the character is “we,” the project team.
• Talk it through as a team. Does it make sense? Does it say everything you want and need it to say? If this were the essential structure of your Fall presentations (stretched out to 7 minutes), would it be successful and would the referees know what you were talking about and why? 

Every year, 10,000 people die prematurely due to air pollution related diseases in Almaty Kazakhstan (Tyo et al., 2022). This number is inevitable in an environment where P.M. 2.5 levels reaches 17 times what WHO recommends as safe. 

However, what is more dangerous than the air pollution itself is people’s indifference towards the issue. A belief that they cannot do anything to improve the situation and protect themselves. A belief so strong that they prefer to keep silent rather than taking actions. 

So, here we are, Breathe Almaty, to ring that bell, to remind these people that they are in charge of their life, health, and the environment. Our project has four elements: cognitive study and public outreach (for ringing the bell); air monitor and filter (for equipping people for the fight against the air pollution).

This work is impossible without our partners in Almaty: the Almaty Management University and the Haileybury school. With these dedicated individuals, we are bridging Lehigh and Almaty and working towards one ultimate goal: to create a society where people are not only aware of their situation but also are willing to take actions and sacrifice their comfort to protect their environment.

We see behavioral change and the following social change as a way to prevent those 10,000 premature deaths. From simple mask-wearing habits to a policy change, it all starts with us. Our decisions matter. Our actions matter. We just need to remind ourselves that we are in charge. 

 

Tyo, V., & Gu, Y. (2022, September 5). Cleaning the Air and Improving People’s Health in Almaty. UNDP Kazakhstan. https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/blog/cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health-almaty