Fall Blog Post #5

Group: Bishoy, Ugochi, Tommy, Allison

20 FAQ’s:

  1. Where the app will be available (platform)
    1. Right now we have an elementary version of the app for android phones. Android is used more commonly among this age group in Kazakhstan, based on questioning our partners.
  2. Where do you get stats for your environmental goals?
    1. We have researched that the recycling rate is 11% in Kazakhstan right now, and projecting an increase to 40% by 2024 is reasonable because the infrastructure is already there, citizens just have to be taught how to be more sustainable; which our venture/app does.
  3. Roles of small businesses?
    1. Small businesses are a core part of our reward system. In our 4 categories, (in game customization, in game power ups, classroom rewards, and gift cards) small businesses would contribute gift cards for users to earn by actively using the app. It makes a win-win situation for both parties because small businesses can advertise our app to people in Almaty, and we can advertise their businesses in our app.
  4. Why did you choose this age group?
    1. Our app is for three age groups; 6-9, 10-12, and 13-16. We chose these ages because that is when children are the most impressionable and formulate lifelong good or bad habits. It is also the age range to most likely find an app/game engaging to play.
  5. Are there current gamification apps that have been successful?
    1. Grendel Games is a company in the Netherlands that has created many successful gamified apps. One of them is called Water Battle. It takes the users (primary school children) through a story of a character in the water network in a city in the Netherlands, and the user learns to use water and energy wisely. This is a very similar concept to ours, and they have found successful, measurable outcomes.
    2. An IEEE publication: “Using Gamification to Incentivize Sustainable Urban Mobility” discussed a case study on a green game called Viagga Rovereto which enhanced Rovereto, Italy’s sustainability in mobility.
    3. IEEE : “A mobile gamification learning system for improving learning the learning motivation and achievements”
    4. IEEE : “HomeSchool: an Interactive Educational tool for child education”
  6. How are kids going to influence their families on their habits?
    1. Children involve their families into their school lives, for example mothers tend to help children with homework, so the family will definitely be involved with a new and innovative idea.
  7. Verification and validation of concept
    1. We have been arranging for the app to be distributed among our partners, but we are still waiting for a final MVP to test it. But we have already heard from a few school teachers (including Xeniya Volkova) that our concept could work.
    2. We have surveys created to send out to students and teachers in Kazakh schools as soon as we hear back from our contacts.
  8. How will the reward system work?
    1. Each sustainable act will earn the user a certain number of points. To get to the next level they need a required amount. In our 4 categories of rewards, (in game customization, in game power ups, classroom rewards, and gift cards), users will be able to choose where they want to spend their points. Outside rewards such as classroom rewards or gift cards will require more points, therefore incentivizing users to complete more sustainable actions. 
  9. Inner workings of the app?
    1. There will be a storyline to engage the user, and tasks and quizzes for them to complete to progress forward in the app’s levels.
    2. Will be answered more effectively with a 20 second video. We can send the link to you afterwards if you would like further information.
  10. How is your app an example of a smart city innovation?
    1. Smart City innovations can range in scope. Ultimately it is some sort of technology that improves citizen’s quality of life. We have written a paper for IEEE’s GHTC conference that was accepted titled “A Taxonomy of Smart City Innovations.” We can send you the link afterwards if you would like to read it.
  11. How can you quantify the impact of the venture and is this impact even a significant role in the potential increase in the recycling rate in Almaty?
    1. We quantify impact using the number of active users compared to the number of schools and students in Almaty. For example our goal is to implement our solution at 4/8 international schools in Almaty. We also plan to quantify by calculating the recycling rate, and also by our quizzes in the app to determine if the students gain knowledge as they play.
  12. What market share might this app have in Almaty?
    1. So there are not a lot of gamified recycling apps in Kazakhstan currently, so we aim for a decent market share of 20%?
  13. How have you tested the app among students, teachers, etc.?
    1. Unfortunately due to many covid restrictions, we haven’t been able to test the app among students or teachers, but as soon as it is possible/safe, that is our next step.
  14. What role do your partners play in the venture?
    1. Our partners in Kazakhstan play a big role in validating our app. Throughout our creation and development process, we shared our progress with our partners to get feedback, criticism, and any advice or recommendations that we could use to improve our process/designs.
  15. What social / cultural barriers are expected?
    1. Their methods of teaching, project management, and achieving goals are different. We use a more active and persistent approach, which sometimes clashes with their work ethic. 
    2. Kazakhstan is being affected by covid as well, so communication is more difficult now. 
    3. It’s a new form of teaching, so it will be met with skepticism.
    4. Environmental literacy and sustainability is a few field of study being implemented into school as far as we know from a few of our partners
  16. How are you planning on funding the development of the app?
    1. We are currently working on a proposal for IEEE SIGHT funding.
  17. What is the significance of using the Saiga antelope?
    1. The saiga is an endangered animal native to the Kazakh steppe, so we wanted to integrate the idea of increased sustainability and recycling with improving the environment for endangered saigas.
  18. How are you incorporating Almaty or Kazakhstan into the design of the app?
    1. All of the sustainability acts will be mindful of the user’s location and what is available and accessible to them in Almaty.
  19. What about students who don’t have access to a mobile device? Will there be a web-version available?
    1. Once we have our app worked out, we can then work on a web-version. However, phones have become progressively less expensive, so most households in Kazakhstan have at least one mobile device.
  20. Why do you think your approach of using gamification and education will be successful?
    1. Literature: In reading many publications about gamification successes, if it includes some form of “persuasion” it is able to change habits. The paper “Gamification of Persuasive Systems for Sustainability” emphasizes this. Also more IEEE papers back this up with successes in children with dyslexia, and ADHD learning to manage better.
    2. Strategy: We will have a storyline to engage users, and rewards to incentivize and persuade effectively.

Fall Blog Post #4

Case 1

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

  • ~35% of the children in East Africa is stunted due to poor nutrition
  • The current gruel used to complement breastfeeding is not nutritionally adequate according to scientific research, but the moms believe the gruel is nutritious.
  • WHO recommends breastfeeding until an infant turns 6 months
  • The longer the child nurses when the mother is HIV+, the higher the chance of them contracted with HIV.
  • The donor who gave us the grant intent is to build up the women’s cooperative to simultaneously improve the nutritional status of children and improve the livelihoods of rural households
  • The grant has sufficient funds for a nutritious, shelf-stable porridge made from locally grown produce
  • The porridge is intended to wean children off of breastfeeding at the age of 6 months
  • The 500 women are skeptical of the porridge as a weaning food because it is too new (not something they’re accustomed to in their daily lives)
  • Pesticides are typically used in growing the crops used in the porridge
  • Assumption: not all women are aware of the adverse health effects resulting from the pesticides used in the crops to make the porridge
  • The area has a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and very little testing

 

Ethical issue: Currently, mothers in the region combine breastfeeding with a non-nutritious maize and banana gruel for the first 24 months of their child’s life. HIV/AIDS is highly prevalent in this region, is not tested on a widespread scale, and can be transmitted through breastfeeding. Our job is to establish a cooperative that will work to give mothers a nutritional porridge that they can use to wean their children off of breastmilk at around 6 months. The problem is, some of the ingredients in this porridge are grown using pesticides, which could result in pesticide residues in the porridge itself. The ethical issue here is deciding whether to go ahead and feed these 6 month old children pesticide grown food, or to continue having the mothers feed their children breast milk with the risk of transmitting HIV.

 

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

Stakeholders:

  • Breastfeeding Moms:
    • Professional Motivation: N/a 
    • Personal Motivation: The mothers want to be providing their babies with the best nutrients while keeping them safe 
  • Woman joining the co-op
    • Professional Motivation: sell as much porridge as possible to the community (build up the co-op), make the best and safest product (porridge), educate breastfeeding mothers, make money.
    • Personal Motivation: help their own babies stay healthy, help their neighbors.
  • Babies
    • Professional Motivation: N/a 
    • Personal Motivation: Want to minimize their risk of contracting HIV and still intake their required nutrients.
  • Farmers 
    • Professional Motivation: produce as much of their crop for community consumption as possible, make money (maximize profit), collaborate with the women in the cooperative 
    • Personal Motivation: help the community stay healthy (provide the best crops)
  • Grant Donor (secondary stakeholder)
    • Professional Motivation: Have good reputation of making good deeds, want their money to be allocated wisely and productively for meaningful purposes
    • Personal Motivation: Want  women in the area to be healthier and have their livelihood improved
  • Doctors
    • Professional Motivation: Would want HIV cases to go down and  would want to allocate their resources and knowledge to other patients with other illnesses  
    • Personal Motivation: Prevent the amount of infants they see with HIV/Malnutrition
  • Us (researchers establishing the co-op)
    • Professional Motivation: To start a successful and sustainable co-op what will also enhance our skill sets and credibility, build up good record and establish their credibility for future fundings and resources 
    • Personal Motivation: Want to improve the livelihoods of women and children in the arena 

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 1: Form the cooperative. Educate the mothers the dangers of breastfeeding children while being HIV+. After six months, have them wean their children off breastmilk with the porridge (without telling them the potential harms from the pesticides).

Ethical Principle or code: Consequence-Based Thinking because we will be able to convince more women to use the porridge by not telling them about possible harms of pesticides. By “hiding” some negatives we will be able to stop breastfeeding earlier and prevent more cases of HIV in children.

Pros: 

  • The babies will have a smaller chance of contracting HIV from their mothers
  • Moms are more likely to switch to the porridge if they think that it is more nutritious than the cruel without any side effects. 

Cons: 

  • We are not telling the mother about the negative effects of the pesticides in the porridge so there is a chance that the porridge will affect the babies negatively in some way.
  • It is also unethical for researchers to not inform women the side effects of the porridge that was developed specifically for their children.
  • HIV+ education to the women and locals cost time and resources 

Potential solution 2: Form the cooperative to educate the Mothers the dangers of breastfeeding children while being HIV+. After six months, have them wean their children off breastmilk with the porridge, and tell them the potential harms from the pesticides.

Ethical Principle or code: Duty Based Thinking because we are doing the right thing, and most ethic thing by giving the women ALL the facts we have. We are telling them all the positives and negatives of breastfeeding and the porridge.

Pros: 

  • Mothers understand the dangers of HIV transmission through breastfeeding
    • Reduces the number of children with HIV
  • Mothers know when to begin feeding their children the porridge, the potential harms, and the nutritional benefits of the porridge
    • Reduces Malnutrition

Cons

  • The decisions now depend on the mothers’ intuition, which can go either way
  • The children still face the risk of contracting HIV+
  • The children are now at risk (if their mothers use the porridge) to the harms of pesticide residue in the food they consume

 

Potential solution 3: Form the cooperative to educate the Mothers the dangers of breastfeeding children while being HIV+. After six months, have them wean their children off breastmilk with the porridge that has gruel in the recipe, and tell them the potential harms from the pesticides.

Ethical Principle or code: Duty Based Thinking (for same reason as above) + Care Based Thinking because we are taking into account the personal relations with the women who prefer to use the guel and feel comfortable with it. 

Pros:

  • The mothers will be more comfortable using an ingredient they trust in their new food supplement
  • the risk of the babies contracting HIV will reduce

Cons:

  • The mothers might be hesitant because there is still a risk associated with using the porridge.
  • Adding gruel to the recipe might reduce the nutritional values of the original recipe, which might impose negative implications on the children’s growth and development. 

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.

I think that Solution 3 is the best course of action because it satisfies duty-based ethical thinking, AND care-based ethical thinking. It is the best solution because while it does explain to the women the potential hazards of pesticides that may be in the porridge, you will also be explaining why it is still a better option than breastfeeding for two years. Through teaching you can emphasize that the risk of contracting HIV is much worse than potential side effects of a small amount of pesticides in the crops. However, you are choosing to be ethical in giving the women ALL the facts that you have so that they can make the final decision for themselves. We are also implementing the gruel (which the women are comfortable with) into the new porridge (which they are not comfortable with yet), making the transition easier.

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.

Because of being thrown lots of scary facts all at once, it may take awhile for women to feel comfortable switching to the porridge. They co-op may start small and take a little bit to grow. By being completely honest and open, you risk a slower growth rate. BUT in the long run you will grow trust and reach more of the community. You will also have to come up with a new porridge recipe that includes the gruel which may cost more money, however it will help the mothers feel more comfortable. 

 

Case 2

Team members: Brianna W, Allison D, Tri N, Jake D.

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

  • The cooperative has been thriving for 6 months
  • The women can sell the produce grown on their farm to the cooperative for additional income.
  • The women work for nine hours a day and make 3$ 
  • The women like this arrangement because it saves them money and time 
  • The women enjoy working together and are happy with the co-op
  • The women have to give their money to their husband father or brother
  • The money the women make gets wasted on alcohol/frivolous things
  • The twin social outcomes of improving the nutritional status of children and the livelihoods of rural households are not achievable right now
  • You as the entrepreneur will leave the cooperative’s committee (you and other 6 local women) after 6 months. 
  • The entrepreneur does not have direct say in the in the co-ops functioning
  • Assumption: not all 500 women of the cooperative will work on growing the produce.
  • The women are upset that their hard earned money is not used to feed their children

Step 2 &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: The women in the co-op do not get to keep their money to feed their children, because the money is given to the men in the household. You are leaving the co-op in 6 months and want to get the cooperative back on track. You want to get the cooperative on track of achieving the twin social outcomes in a sustainable manner.

Stakeholders:

  • Other 6 members of leadership committee
    • Personal Motivations: want to provide for their family, wants to keep good relations with the men and not cause issues, wants to keep good relations with the other women in the co-op. 
    • Professional Motivations: maintain position on the leadership committee, make a decision that satisfies everyone in the co-op and in the community.
  • Men in households:
    • Personal Motivations: buy products and goods that are personally satisfying (alcohol, and luxury items)
    • Professional Motivations: Work and provide for their family, but also take the money that the women bring home.
  • Breastfeeding Moms:
    • Professional Motivation: N/a 
    • Personal Motivation: The mothers want to be providing their babies with the best nutrients while keeping them safe 
  • Woman joining the co-op
    • Professional Motivation: sell as much porridge as possible to the community (build up the co-op), make the best and safest product (porridge), educate breastfeeding mothers, make money.
    • Personal Motivation: help their own babies stay healthy, help their neighbors.
  • Babies
    • Professional Motivation: N/a 
    • Personal Motivation: Want to minimize their risk of contracting HIV and still intake their required nutrients.
  • Farmers 
    • Professional Motivation: produce as much of their crop for community consumption as possible, make money (maximize profit), collaborate with the women in the cooperative 
    • Personal Motivation: help the community stay healthy (provide the best crops)
  • Grant Donor (secondary stakeholder)
    • Professional Motivation: Have good reputation of making good deeds, want their money to be allocated wisely and productively for meaningful purposes
    • Personal Motivation: Want  women in the area to be healthier and have their livelihood improved
  • Doctors
    • Professional Motivation: Would want HIV cases to go down and  would want to allocate their resources and knowledge to other patients with other illnesses  
    • Personal Motivation: Prevent the amount of infants they see with HIV/Malnutrition
  • Us (researchers establishing the co-op)
    • Professional Motivation: To start a successful and sustainable co-op what will also enhance our skill sets and credibility, build up good record and establish their credibility for future fundings and resources 
    • Personal Motivation: Want to improve the livelihoods of women and children in the arena 

Step 4, 5, and 6: Formulate ONE solution – based on information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture. Include additional assistance you sought to identify the one best solution. 

Optimal Solution: The cooperative will establish a partial credit system that allows women to earn more benefits by storing some of their earned money rather than cashing out $3 every day. These benefits can be in the form of discounts on local goods and porridge for the kids.The committee will decide the procedure on how to cash out (limit per day, what products can be purchased with high credits), making sure that money will be spent towards their kids rather than being wasted by the men in the households. However, the other portion of their pay (lesser part) will be in cash so that they can still save face with the men in the households. Additionally, the women will also be allowed to take home roughly two servings of porridge each day to ensure their kids are being fed.

 

How does the solution meet twin outcomes?

The women in the co-op will be able to use their pay to provide for their families now (through the credit system), and also will still be bringing back physical money to the men at home (so it doesn’t disrupt cultural norms and cause issues in the community). The women will not have to confront the men about wanting to use the money for other non-frivolous things. On the other side, you are still “paying” the women in the co-op. Altogether, this solution will help meet the twin outcomes: better nutrition for the children and improved livelihood for rural households.

Pros: 

  • The women have to spend a certain amount of their earned pay on food for their families. 
  • The women are allowed to bring home porridge free of charge each day to nourish their children.

Cons:

  • The men will still be receiving some of the women’s pay and using on personal luxury items.
  • The women will only be able to use their credit earnings on porridge, or food/products that are within the co-op (or agreed upon by the committee). 

 

How does it save face of those involved? 

The co-op partial credit system allows for the women to still bring home a smaller portion of physical money that the men will be able to spend how they want to. The women will now be given an opportunity to spend their money how they want (on their families) without having to confront the men. It will also save face for the co-op and the committee, because it is a very non-confrontational approach that attempts not to disrupt cultural norms. 

Implications on relationships 

  • Short-term 
    • The men will most likely be disappointed that the women are bringing home less money, but the men will not likely be too offended that they abuse the wives and the children because at least we still give them the impression that they are “in control” of the finance.
  • Long-term 
    • The relationships will be healthier between the men and women in the household because the men will still be receiving money though it is small and the women will be able to feed their children
    • The men might start changing their behavior and thinking more about their family.
    • The families will have access to more food and necessary items (live better)
    • If the children grow up happier and healthier, they could help out the family with higher productivity, which could raise the family’s income and contribute to the elevated livelihoods.

Implications on the venture 

  • Short-term
    • They co-op will have to be prepared to have more porridge available because the women in the co-op will now be buying more too.
    • Might be easier to pay the women (not need as much cash).
  • Long-term 
    • The committee will now have more power in deciding the ratio of credit to cash payments of the women, and also in what products they can use the credit on.
    • The co-op may be more successful because each of the women will now essentially be reinvesting their earnings into the company by buying food. 
      • More women may be able to participate

 

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

We combined our own proposed solution as well as our peers’ in order to maximize the benefits to the community while saving faces for every stakeholder involved. Some of our peer’s suggestions:

  1. Gift card. Extracting part of the money that they earn per day to the gift card, which can be used to purchase goods in the grocery store. 
  2. Food Receipt. Require that a certain amount of the food is spent responsibly. Receipts required, incentives could be included to encourage more responsible use of money in the rural household.
  3. Hold meetings with the cooperative’s committees (6 women) and the community leaders (including both men and women) to bring up the issue and discuss how money earned by the women working for the cooperatives can be distributed in a more sustainable manner. 
  4. Co-op gives the women option to walk away with porridge everyday for free to address malnutrition problem

Our inner reflection: 

  • We do not integrate solution 1 and 2 into our proposal because we think it might not be as effective as the credit system in the context of giving  the power to the women to purchase food and necessities to support their families physically and mentally. 
  • We got solution 4 from our peers, and we think it is a viable idea that can help address the malnutrition problem effectively; so, we incorporate them into our solution. 
  • For solution 3, it doesn’t not necessarily solve the problem, but it reminds us that no matter how good our solution is, if we don’t have a good implementation strategy, it automatically becomes useless. The team will take this into consideration into our last step.

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

  • Ask the women in the leadership committee if they want a change. Get them to understand the system and the problem we are facing.
  • Validate it with committee and the men – talk to 25-30 people one on one, try to get them on board 
  • Bring everyone together for the large meeting
  • Try to moderate the discussion → move it towards to the grassroot diplomacy 
  • Ask the people in the meeting, “How do they want to structure the cooperatives’ finance?”
  • Figure out a set ratio of credit/cash pay, and implement ways the committee can adjust this over time if it doesn’t work.
  • Figure out what items the credit can be used for.
  • Test the system out for a few months, and reconvene with the committee to make adjustments if needed. 
  • Before you leave, make sure you communicate candidly and clearly with the 6 women in the committee about the vision and core mission of the cooperative, making sure everyone is on the same page. Encourage them to find and educate younger members about the mindset so that the venture keeps flourishing even after your departure.

 

 

Fall Blog Post #3

Step 1: Facts

  • Children living in youth center in Kenya
  • Children of all ages 3-14 yo
  • Youth center received gifts from donor
  • Gifts already allocated for specific children, Jack is meant to distribute gifts
    • Four children did not receive gifts
    • Staff unconcerned about these children that didn’t get a gift
  • Have black hats which are available to distribute as an alternative
    • These children are unhappy with Jack and feel excluded
  • Assumed cultural difference between Jack (who is American) and the Staff (who are Kenyan)
    • It may be a cultural normal that when gifts come to the center, not every child gets a gift every time
  • Black hat assumed to have some sort of negative stigma

Step 2: Problem & Stakeholders

Problem: Four children at the youth center didn’t receive a gift from the donor because they were short. They were given hats to supplement, but now it looks bad that Jack didn’t get them a similar gift. 

  • Children Without Gifts
  • Children With Gifts
  • Jack 
  • Youth Center Staff 
  • Donor of Gifts

Step 3: Personal vs Professional Motivations

  • Children Without Gifts
    • Personal: might want to take the other children’s gifts because they feel left out 
    • Professional: N/A
  • Children With Gifts
    • Personal: might make the children without the gifts feel bad, want to keep their better gift
    • Professional: N/A
  • Jack 
    • Personal: doesn’t want the kids at the youth center to hate him, wants to be “the good guy”
    • Professional: doesn’t want to upset the staff by blaming the mix up on them or overstepping with his solution; concerned about well-being of children
  • Youth Center Staff
    • Personal: be trusted and liked by the children, wants to be “the good guy”
    • Professional: want to be respected by the children and not to be taken advantage of, wants the operation to keep running smoothly
  • Donor of Gifts
    • Personal: make kids happy
    • Professional: reach as many youth centers as they can

Step 4: Solutions

  • The children can share the gifts so that no child goes without a gift. This solves the problem by combining all gifts for use by any child at the youth center. Assign gifts on a number system each week (to mitigate the effect of cons).
    • Pros: no child will feel excluded, and each child can have access to a variety of gifts rather than one gift. It will instill a positive lesson in the children, as sharing is important for the kids to learn. Jack will save face providing a quick solution to the imminent issue involving the shortage of gifts. 
    • Cons: children may fight over the gifts, some gifts may be neglected because the children choose others. In this situation, it is likely that the children will want something that they can call their own. Asking the children to share the gifts they were given as individuals may take away some of the feelings of pride of ownership. Not all gifts may be appropriate for all children due to the range of ages.
    • Saves Face: No child will feel completely left out anymore and everyone will be able to play at some point.
    • Implications on Relationships: In the short term, some of the children might be upset they have to give up their personal gift for everyone to share, but in the long term all the children should be happy because they now have more gifts overall to play with.
    • Implications on Venture: The youth center will have to monitor when each child can play with each toy to allow everyone to play equally, so it is a little more work in the short term. But long term, hopefully everyone is happier.
  • Jack can tell them their gifts were lost, delayed, give them the hats for now. Get the children gifts at a later date.
    • Pros: eventually all children will have a gift, everyone is leaving with something at the time (although some just have hats).
    • Cons: children will be disappointed until they receive their actual gifts, may not be as interested in the gift at the later time, have to go out and acquire additional gifts.
    • Saves Face: Jack doesn’t blame any specific person for the children not receiving their gifts, and promises them that they will get the same gift eventually so hopefully saving his relationship with them.
    • Implications on Relationships: Children will be unhappy until they receive their gifts, putting more responsibility on Jack to make up for shortcoming. Once they receive their gift they will be happy with Jack after that.
    • Implications on Venture: Short term the youth center (or Jack) will have to spend money out of pocket to get the children their gifts. The children will potentially be upset until they get the gifts. But long term everyone will receive a gift of the same caliber.
  • Jack can take the children who received the black hats aside and make up a fun story to tell them about why the hats are special and how they can use them to play a game of some sort. Make modifications to hats to make them more appealing, add a fun experience to the gift.
    • Pros: This will make the children feel better about not receiving one of the other, more exciting, gifts. It will allow Jack to preserve his relationship with the children. It will avoid setting a precedent or creating a conflict with the staff at the center. This also preserves Jack’s status with the children, which will prevent them from walking all over him because he acts too sympathetically.
    • Cons: The children may see right through the act, making them still feel left out. The staff may be wary that you have chosen to act when they did not perceive a problem. Making decorations on hats requires additional resources- sets precedent. Kids without hats feel excluded.
    • Saves Face: Children will feel better about not getting the other gifts and they will still like Jack. Jack will make them and their gifts seem special.
    • Implications on Relationships: This is a “goldilocks” approach that will not completely satisfy the children because they are still without a conventional gift, but it does not cause conflict with the staff. By acting in this way, Jack is able to preserve relationships with the children and the staff for the long term.
    • Implications on the Venture: By preserving relationships with all parties, the motivation of the venture is saved. If partnerships were strained by the decision made by Jack, they may be less likely to continue working together. 

Step 5: Additional Info

  • From personal experience, children like when they are singled out in a good way, so the solution that makes an interesting story about the hats may be even happier than the other kids because they now feel special.

Step 6: Best Action

  • I think that the best course of action for Jack would be to take the children who only received the hats aside, and tell them a special story to make their hats have more meaning. In doing so, Jack now makes those kids feel special instead of left out. The story can be about a made up character having special powers with the hats, or a story of what an important historical figure did with a hat like that, or something along those lines. In doing this, it will cost Jack and the youth center no money out of pocket (like the other solution does). It also saves face for Jack because the children will like feeling special and not resent Jack for “forgetting” them. Jack will be able to maintain a good relationship with both the children and the youth center, without making any party look bad because of the mistake. In the short term, the children will be happy because everyone will have some sort of gift (and not have to share because that is difficult for children sometimes), and in the long term, Jack will be able to maintain good relations with both the children and the youth center staff because he handled the situation well with minimal conflict.

Step 7: Sequence of Action

  1. Distribute all the gifts to the children, and the hats to those remaining (if possible disperse the hats between giving the actual gifts rather than all at the end to make it seem more natural).
  2. After the ceremony, ask to speak to all the children with the hats.
  3. Come up with a good story to make the hats special.
  4. Tell the children the story in a fun way.
  5. Emphasize that the hats are special, and to take care of them.
  6. Make sure that every child’s name is on a list for the youth center so that no mix-ups happen in the future. 

Fall Blog Post #2

Step 1: Facts

  • There is a disease-causing pathogen only found in a small region of Lesotho. 
  • The testing is simple, but the trip/equipment will cost money, and community assistance is required.
    • We are studying the life cycle/characteristics of a certain pathogen.
  • The people in Lesotho know where (all?) the water sources are. 
  • We are expected to write some publications on what we find from our research.
  • Characterizing pathogens can help further research into how to make water safer to drink.
  • Assumption: The pathogen is present in the community water sources. 
  • Assumption: We know that there is no risk of further water contamination from the studies we are conducting.
  • Assumption: We got IRB approval, and approval from Lesotho to do research there.

 

Ethical Issue: 

  • Is this study just an example of hit and run research or does this research actually help the people of Lesotho or have social value in general?
  • Balance between ethics and rigor, not doing study rigorously enough is an ethical issue too.

 

Step 2: Stakeholders

  • Researchers (academics)
  • The University of the academics
  • Funders of the research/Government Agency
  • Villagers of Lesotho
  • Healthcare System/Providers (secondary/tertiary)
  • Academic Journal

Step 3: Motivations

  • Researchers -> academic prestige, maintain jobs, create positive impact through their research/findings.
  • The University of the academics -> maintain their reputation globally, advancing knowledge & delivering value to society.
  • Villagers -> obtain clean water supply, stay healthy, not have their lifestyle completely disrupted, lower risk of contracting disease, building connections and relationships, possible economic development with cleaner water in tourism and exporting water to South Africa.
  • Funders/Government Agency -> stake in developing an additive or water cleaning system, obtain more grants for future work, research might help their projects and development, creates a positive image of corporate social responsibility, develop their brand in this area.
  • Healthcare system/providers in Lesotho -> less burden from waterborne diseases, more resources to devote to other conditions.
  • Academic Journal -> acquire new research (groundbreaking) that adds to general knowledge of pathogens, build reputation.

Step 4: Solutions

  • Conduct experiments on how the pathogen affects health. Experiments would include testing the water with pathogens on rats. 
  • Select guides which are knowledgeable of water sources; typically women
  • Test water from multiple sources; in villages with different socioeconomic statuses.
  • Only collect the water samples in vials when doing on ground work; test the water later in labs.
  • Educate the villagers of Lesotho about your findings while you are there about things they can do in their capacities & after the water has been tested, and help them towards finding a solution to any disease-causing pathogens you found
    • Sharing information and results that would benefit the people of Lesotho (+those downstream of Lesotho) after the research gets published 
    • Email the papers to the heads of communities to show that something came out of the research they assisted in 
    • Maximizing clinical value & making sure there is positive social impact/return
  • Identify the source or the pathogen. Where/how is it contaminating the lake.
  • Conduct simple examinations on locals to identify symptoms and effects from drinking the lake’s water. 
  • Attempt to provide a temporary cleaning solution or import purified water.
  • Scan the area of the lake. Identify behaviors from the locals that could be contributing to the pathogen. 
  • Request the right to access the water sources from legislation/leaders of each village and explain what you are doing/plan to do/and how you are testing, negotiating for access
    • Appeal to community health workers in Lesotho who understand what you are doing and can explain it to the community 
  • Negotiations and incentives are a way of reducing what you are taking personally and providing a return which addresses the issue of beneficence
    • Also addresses the rigor of the study because you’re making sure you contact and get information from people who are educated about your research and who can provide you with accurate information
    • Ensuring that you do the study right, focus on legitimacy
  • PROS: Working with community, broadening knowledge of pathogens, potentially helping them in future.
  • CONS: Not reporting back to them with enough information on our findings to help them in any sense (no compensation), process of requesting access to the water in Lesotho through the government may take longer than we anticipated, we do not find anything helpful/new in our research, the community members in Lesotho have the right to turn us down (our funding sources would be mad).
  • ETHICAL PRINCIPLE/CODE: These solutions and the research are mostly consequence based thinking, because it is focused on discovering more about pathogens and creating more knowledge about them globally in the hopes that some disease prevention will come out of it. However, our steps to request access to the water sources in Lesotho bring a more duty and virtue based approach because we are trying to get their approval, work with the community members, and hopefully bring back new information to them to help in the future.

Step 5: Additional

  • NSPE Code of Ethics: This legislature enforces that engineers “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” in their work. Hence, an engineer need note this when debating the ethics of this study.
  • Who has approved the study? The university? Has it received IRB approval?
    • IRB Ethics:
      • Social or Scientific Value
      • Scientific Validity
      • Fair Subject Selection
      • Favorable Risk – Benefit
      • Independent Review
      • Informed Consent
      • Respect for Potential and Enrolled Subjects
  • Belmont Report -> beneficence, respect for persons, justice
    • Are you protecting the anonymity of the volunteers if they wish for it?

 

Step 6: Best Action

  • To start: request the right to access the water sources from legislation/leaders of each village and explain what you are doing/plan to do/and how you are testing, negotiating for access (the meeting will be in a culturally sensitive location and adhere to their standards).
    • Appeal to community health workers in Lesotho who understand what you are doing and can explain it to the community 
  • To compensate the community members that help us during our study, we will drive them to the water sources, and when we are testing the water, explain our process and what our intended outcome is. In a sense, educating them on pathogens and disease preventions in water.
    • Long term compensation would be to report back to them about our findings. Give the heads of the community our publications, and educate them on potential solutions to rid of any disease-causing pathogens we find.
  • To make the study as just as possible, we will test water from multiple sources; in villages with different socioeconomic statuses. We will also ask those who are most educated on the water sources (women?).
  • When testing, we will only collect the water samples in vials when actually at the location, and test the water later in labs. That way we are disrupting villagers as little as possible. 
  • Potential downsides to this plan are that the community members/government of Lesotho may want more say in the study and want to play a bigger role, may not allow us into their country in the first place if they do not believe our study will help them, or may want more immediate compensation.

 

Step 7: Venture Implications

  • Improve community health.
  • Opportunity to market water treatment/cleaning solution.
  • Adding to knowledge of waterborne pathogens.
    • Enhance knowledge through publications and education.
  • Potential positive or negative environmental implications if the water treatment solution is derived from this research and introduced to the community.
  • Potential employment/volunteering of locals into protecting the lake and working with our venture apply our solutions.