Case Study #1: Water Research

Leave a comment

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.

Leave a Reply