Lesotho Case Study:

  • Step 1: Facts
    • Lesotho is a small developing country
    • You are a group of 10 researchers
    • You have 2 weeks to conduct research
    • You are looking for pathogens in the water sources
    • Your team requires community assistance to locate water sources
    • Your goal is to produce publications
    • Chemical additives may be produced as a result of your publications
  • Ethical issue: Is your current research plan ethical?
    • It is ethical but there are solutions to make it fairer to the Lesotho communities
  • Step 2/3: Stakeholders and Motivations
    • Researchers: want the best possible outcome of their study, efficiently find participants, make study ethical, identify and study all pathogens
    • Participants in the study: offer assistance to a project that could positively impact their community, potential for safe drinking water
    • Funders: RESULTS, return on investment, maintain reputation, stay within the timeline
    • People of Lesotho:  want their water to be safe to drink, protect water as one of their main natural resources, want something out of participating in the study
    • University: Care about reputation and return on investment. Would like the study to stay within budget 
    • (Lesotho)Government: keep the people safe and benefit long and short term for the people, improvement in the society/community long and short term, protect natural resources (water)
  • Step 4 Solutions
  1. Pay the people
    1. Pros: communities will be eager to help, gives them purchasing power for items they need, your team gets the help they need, many people will be likely to volunteer
    2. Cons: unknown how much the community will want, does the community want the money or the individual people, cannot guarantee they will spend the money to help themselves, they are still susceptible to the pathogen, may cause issues within the community is some members receive monetary incentives while others are left out, increase amount needed from University/Funding Agents
  2. Don’t pay the people
    1. Pros: save money which will please the funders and university, what “most” researchers do
    2. Cons: communities may lack enthusiasm and may be uneasy about the research, some areas might not help you at all (waste of resources), no delays to publication
  3. Provide incentive other than monetary along with education
    1. Pros: almost Guarantees to help the people with the water issue specifically, maybe be cheaper than giving a large number of people cash, education may allow the researchers to bridge social/cultural differences
    2. Cons: Will cost some amount of money more than just the bare minimum, may cause the researcher to take longer thereby delaying the publication, increase the amount needed from University/Funding Agents, and increase the time needed due to added educational aspect   
  • Step 5 Additional Assistance (research)
    • The main source of water for parts of eastern South Africa 
    • Very vulnerable to political disputes in South Africa 
    • Droughts are common 
    • Water is distributed through the Lesotho Highlands Water Project 
    • Waterborne diseases are common and the infant mortality rate is high b/c of them
  • Step 6 Best Course of Action
    • Option 3: Provide non-monetary incentives as well as education
      • Incentives will encourage community members to help us locate water sources in the community for us to retrieve the knowledge we need but we are also returning that knowledge to them.  Providing education on the pathogens and water safety will ensure that the community is more aware of the potential dangers of waterborne illnesses as well as making sure they are able to protect themselves against it.
      • Non-monetary Incentives like pots to boil water or different water filtration systems will have a more long term effect on the community and can protect them from the pathogens we are studying.  Do not have to worry about paying only one person if you provide community-based incentives
      • This solution helps us retrieve the need information while making a lasting and positive impact on the community.
  • Implications
    • By providing water safety education, both in the dangers and how to prevent them, we’re making sure that these communities are aware and safe from the pathogen we are studying as well as other water safety issues.  This knowledge can be spread and help aid the country in becoming a safer and more stable region.  More time will be spent on the ground due to the educational aspect so publications may be delayed.

Leave a Reply