Facts of the Case

• Jack is American college student 
• Jack was tasked with handing out gifts to the kids
• The staff views the 4 kids not getting gifts as a non-issue; they do not want drama
• The kids think Jack bought gifts for them 
• The kids were mad when they thought he “shorted them” with the hats 
• Jack wants the kids to like him because it will make his work easier
• Jack is there for five more months 
• Jack works at a youth center 
• There were not enough gifts for all of the kids and some received worse ones

 

Stakeholders and Motivations 

• The kids (personal)
  • Want the nice gifts 
  • Want the gift ceremony and the attention that comes with it 
  • Want to show off their gifts 
  • Want attention from Jack 
  • Those who did not get the good gifts want to be seen as the same as those who got the good ones
• Jack (professional)
  • Wants the staff to trust and like him because it will make for a better working environment 
  • Wants the kids to trust and like him because close relationships will make his job better
  • Wants the staff to see him doing good work and be respected
• Jack (personal)
  • Wants the kids to see him as cool and a good person
  • Does not want the moral weight of kids blaming him for bad gifts
• The youth center staff (professional)
  • They want to maintain their reputation and credibility
  • Do not want Jack undermining them 
  • Do not want Jack making their jobs harder with additional problems
• The youth center staff (personal)
  • Do not want to be called out for a “moral failing”
  • Want to be seen as good people 

 

Alternative Solutions

Approach 1: Utilitarian 

This approach is just to do nothing further. Doing the ceremony the first time already benefited most of the kids and doing any more would just upset the staff and make the other kids irrationally jealous about the “extra attention” being paid to the four kids. This would allow the situation to blow over while Jack saves face with the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders.

• Pros:
  • • There is no additional time or monetary investment from Jack
    • The Staff does not get upset with Jack
    • The other kids don’t feel like the four are getting special treatment 

– Cons: 

• • • The four kids could be upset for a little bit 
    • Jack would be upset for a little bit 

 

Approach 2: Deontology 

This approach is the “moral high road” choice and involves buying four more gifts for the kids and giving it to them independently. This would allow Jack to save face with the four kids while also not making too big of a deal out of the situation. However, the staff and other kids would certainly notice and could get upset.

• Pros: 
  • • The four kids who were left out now feel like Jack cares and he looks good in their eyes
    • Jack feels better about the situation
  • Cons: 
    • This requires a decent investment of money, time, and effort on Jack’s part 
    • Makes the staff look bad 
    • Makes the other kids feel like the four are favored by Jack

 

Approach 3: Absolutism 

Either everyone gets the gifts in the same way or no one gets them. Since Jack couldn’t really take the gifts from the kids back he would have to solve the problem by buying gifts for the four kids and hold just as elaborate of a ceremony for them. This would likely be problematic with the staff and other kids who did not need the headache of another ceremony.

• Pros: 
  • • Perfectly equal
    • No one is left out
  • Cons:
    • Lots of time and money needs to be invested in such a large undertaking  
    • Staff would get upset that Jack made a big deal out of the situation
    • Other kids could get upset that they are not getting gifts this time 

Best Choice:

I believe that after considering all the information the best course of action is to go with solution #1, or the Utilitarian approach. This means that Jack simply needs to forget about it and move on without doing anything. I think this is the best solution because it primarily saves face with the staff who, like it or not, have much more of an impact on Jack’s enjoyment and effectiveness while working at the center. This would show the staff that Jack is serious and professional while also not undermining their authority. The other kids would also not get jealous if Jack went out and bought more gifts for the other four kids and the ones who did not receive them in the first place would likely forget it even happened shortly after. This would allow Jack to still have a strong relationship with most of the kids, the staff, and likely the other four kids once they moved on and forgot about it, all without creating a tense situation.

Facts of the Case

• Going to Lesotho for two weeks with nine other researchers, most (if not all) of whom are white westerners
• They will be traveling to different villages to test water sources for disease carrying pathogens
•  There is nowhere else to do this testing; this is the best and only place to carry out the research 
• The main goal of this team is to conduct research, not implement a solution 
• The people in the community where this research is being done are, at least initially, not going to see any tangible benefit to contributing their labor to the research 

 

Main question: Is this study ethical to carry out?

• Sub-question: Should people (the locals) be paid for the work that they are doing in helping the researchers? 

 

Stakeholders:

• Investors
  • Have a return on investment 
  • Have a social impact
• University/foundation/organization
  • Increase their prestige
  • Further academic work
  • Attract new students with groundbreaking work
  • Make their research more recognized and respected 
• Research team
  • Want to publish their findings in papers and be credited for their work
  • Hope to make progress for the understanding of this issue 
  • Want to help people by providing to the general wealth of knowledge around the issue 
• Community members
  • They likely desire better health for the community and families within it
  • Likely want to improve the safety of people in the village/community
  • They also want their community to grow stronger and more prosperous 
• Other communities threatened by this pathogen 
  • They want to stop an outbreak before it happens 
  • They hope to benefit from the safety spreading to them
  • They want to facilitate ease of travel and lessen the chances of disease spreading 

Three Potential Solutions 

1. Partner with an established NGO/Organization to pay community members fairly and use their institutional knowledge
   1. PROS
      1. They could decide who gets paid and what
      2. They are more in touch with the community
      3. Have pre existing standards
      4. Could share the responsibility 
   2. CONS
      1. Bureaucratic issues
      2. Logistically much harder
      3. Conflicting motivations and ends 
2. Hire a couple specific, well regarded community members to ask the questions for you and collect the data from the rest of the community and then pay them
   1. PRO
      1. You would know who to pay and how much based on hours
      2. More direct communication/logistics
      3. More direct oversight 
      4. More credibility
   2. CONS
      1. More costly
      2. More responsibility on you
      3. Less time; might not be able to cover as much ground 
3. Do not pay them and instead “compensate” them with  education about the issue and how to prevent it short term in exchange for their work in helping develop a long term solution
   1. PRO
      1. Cheap
      2. Compensates them with practical knowledge right off the bat
      3. Mutually beneficial relationship 
   2. CONS
      1. Translation/language barrier affecting the education
      2. Not cash, not tangible 
      3. White savior-ish
      4. May not be fair, taking advantage 

Chosen Solution: #1: Partner with an NGO to decide who gets paid and what

Upon considering the various options, I believe this study is ethical and that the best course of action would be to partner with a local NGO focusing on water security. This approach would provide numerous benefits in the long run while minimizing personal risk for the research team. Firstly, this approach would allow for the team to have an institution backing their work that already has existing safety and ethical standards which would help confront future ethical concerns. Secondly, a partnership would allow the researchers to have a contact that is much more in touch with the community and could better understand how to approach the issue. A greater understanding of the community would also help in paying the participants, which should be done, because then they would be compensated fairly as per the NGOs guidance. Lastly, this would shift some responsibility off the research team in the short run and allow for the NGO to carry on the work of the team after they leave so people might benefit from the research. The only serious drawback to this solution is that there would be more bureaucratic red tape and some conflicting interests on the project’s ends, but the additional support stated above would be well worth it.