Month: September 2020

Part 1

Partners: Tri N, Allison D, Brianna W

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.

• There is a 15-45% chance of passing HIV onto your baby if neither are taking treatment (https://www.avert.org/hiv-transmission-prevention/pregnancy-childbirth-breastfeeding) 
• In East and South Africa, 20.7million adults have HIV in 2019
  • 84k new HIV infections in children (0-14yrs) in 2018
  • (https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/sub-saharan-africa/overview)

 

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 3 is the best course of action to take out of our three solutions. It satisfies duty-based ethical thinking and care based ethical thinking. In this case, I think it’s important to inform the mothers on all the facts that they need to know about the porridge and simultaneously educate them on HIV transmission through breastfeeding. It is an ethical solution to give the mothers all the facts about both options. This solution also is likely to attract more mothers, as it includes the gruel in the recipe, which is something that they are already familiar with.

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.

Understandably, a lot of mothers will be hesitant to work with the co-op, as it’s something they are unfamiliar with. I would imagine that incorporating the gruel into our recipe would convince more mothers to join and help grow the co-op faster. The larger the co-op gets, the more mothers will take the proper steps to prevent HIV transmission and malnourishment.

 

Part 2 

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

 

Ethical issue: 

 

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.

 

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

• Jack is an American student who is working on a social venture at a youth center in Kenya
• On a Saturday evening, kids are receiving gifts from an international donor organization 
• The gifts were picked up from an international donor a week before
• Jack was picked to help with the passing out of the gifts
• There were four children who did not receive gifts and instead they received black hats 
• The kids who received the hats were upset that they were not given the gifts in a ceremonious fashion
• One of the kids who received the hat gave jack a stare that indicated he was not happy
• Jack met with the staff discuss the kids that felt left out and they did not want to get involved

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

Problem: Jack needs to find a way to repair his relationship with the kids who seem to blame him for not getting gifts while not degrading his relationship with the staff.

1. Kids
2. Staff at the center / the youth center
3. Jack
4. The University Jack Works for
5. The International Doner 

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

1. There are no professional motivations for the kids
   1. Personally, the kids all want to receive a gift. Those that did not are probably embarrassed
2. Professionally they are motivated to earn some sort of income
   1. Personally they are motivated to give back to the community and help the children at the youth center
   2. They want to improve the lives of the children
3. Professionally: Wants to save face and establish future relationships with kids and staff, wants to take care of kids. 
   1. Has to save face with both groups: he can’t just flat out tell the kids that the staff didn’t get them enough gifts and he can’t just get them a gift without hurting his relationship with the staff members.
   2. Personally, Jack feels bad that some of the kids didn’t get a present, he wants all the kids to be happy.
4. Professionally: Wants Jack’s work to help improve their reputation
   1. Personally, I’m sure there’s an employee of the university who has a personal tie to this specific youth center, so that individual does not want Jack to ruin relationships that they established.
5. Professionally: The donor organization is increasing their philanthropic reputation
   1. Personally: They want to make these kids happier

 

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

Potential Solution 1: Make a game that makes having one of the hats special

1. 1.  Pros
      • The kids are happier because their gift means something after all
      • The staff is happy because they do not have to get involved and they can take credit for the hats
   2. Cons
      • It is still unfair because the hats are not as good as the gifts
      • Takes up time for Jack and the staff members to think up of a game 
      • Making the hats special can make the other kids feel worse about their gifts
   3. How does it save face of those involved?
      • It makes Jack and the staff look better because the four kids who received hats will be less upset
      • The kids who receive the black hat won’t feel as bad or left out, they no longer have a reason to be embarrassed 
      • Jack and the staff also no longer look like they forgot gifts
   4. Implications on relationships
      •  Short-term
        • Kids won’t be upset at Jack/staff
        • Jack can now build trust in his relationships with both the kids and the staff
      • Long-term
        • Kids will feel more comfortable talking to Jack and the staff because they see the effort they are putting into them

 

Potential Solution 2: Buy other gifts for the kids

1. 1. Pros
      • Kids feel special because they got gifts afterall
   2. Cons
      • Jack has to spend his own money on gifts 
      • Doesn’t fully solve the problem because the staff still originally forgot gifts and the four kids probably realize that
      • Staff might not like it because Jack is going over their heads to buy gifts
   3. How does it save face of those involved?
      • Jack/staff will not feel as guilty because the gifts receive the gift
   4. Implications on relationships
      •  Short-term
        • Kids are happy to receive gifts and like Jack more
        • Staff could be upset
      • Long-term
        • The kids will probably appreciate jack for getting them gifts even though it’s late
        • Staff will not trust Jack for future events 

 

Potential Solution 3: Buy himself and the entire staff the same black hats

1. 1. Pros
      • Makes the kids who received the hats feel better about their gift
      • Builds stronger relationships between the kids, the staff and Jack
      • The staff members probably wouldn’t mind getting a free hat
   2. Cons
      • Jack has to spend money 
      • Kids who don’t have hats may feel left out 
   3. How does it save face of those involved?
      • Saves face for Jack, the kids will probably be less angry at him
      • Saves face for the staff since they are also participating
      • The kids may (or may not) feel less embarrassed about receiving their hat
   4. Implications on relationships
      • Short-term
        • Kids will be less upset about not receive gifts 
        • Staff would be happy and more accepting of him
      • Long-term
        • Jack would have a better connection with those kids who do receive the black hats (common ground)

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

• Peers – asking help from other volunteers at the center on how to approach the situation 
• Inner reflection – Previous experiences with children or siblings
• One-on-one conversations with staff members to ask what they would do, might be easier to get them to help if he approaches them this way
• Talk to the children, inquire about how they feel/how they can feel better

 

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.

I think buying the hats for himself and the staff is the best option. It saves face for Jack and the staff as the kids will like their black hats more. The kids who were embarrassed about not receiving a gift will feel less embarrassed about it, so it saves face for them as well. In addition this option has the best short-term and long-term implications for Jack’s relationship with the staff and the children. The staff will appreciate his efforts of fixing the problem without them getting involved and also receive a free hat. The children will also be much happier with Jack as now they all have matching hats. The biggest con I could see happening is Jack has to spend money on these new hats and the kids who don’t have the hats might get a little upset.

This option is ideal because it also builds a sense of  comradery between the staff members, Jack and the kids. I think if Jack puts in this extra effort the kids will learn to love him and the staff members will be super appreciative of his actions. It seems to me that buying the hats would probably not pose a major financial burden on Jack as well.

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

• Jack buys the hats
• He distributes the hats to the staff and they start wearing them around more
• The children notice Jack and the staff wearing their hats
• The four children become more satisfied with their hats
• Jack could even talk to the kids about how much he likes the hat as well
• Could incorporate the hats into a game after all (combine potential solutions)

1. Determine the facts of the situation:
2. 1. The academic research is going to be happening in Lesotho and is going to take two weeks.
   2. The research entails testing water sources for disease-causing pathogens.
   3. The research will require significant assistance from the community.
      1. The community will show our team the different locations where they get their water from and places they store it.
   4. We’re assuming that we do not need to pay them based on the fact that we would be willing to help if someone was asking us to do the same.
   5. The goal of the study is to understand the lifecycle and characteristics of a specific pathogen, found only in this region of Lesotho.
   6. Publications are expected – a comprehensive profiled of the pathogen will help develop chemical additives to make the water safe to drink.
   7. The pathogen is found only in this region of Lesotho.

1. Define the stakeholders
   1. Our research team
   2. The University/organization funding the research
   3. Locals in Lesotho who drink the water
   4. The government of Lesotho
   5. The chemical additive developers

 

2. Motivations of each stakeholder

The Research Team

• Our motivation is to understand the life cycle of the pathogen.
• Furthermore, we are motivated to disseminate the newfound knowledge to the greater academic community.
• Some of the researchers may have personal motivation to help the Lesotho community affected by the pathogen.
• Some of the researchers are likely only doing it for a paycheck or to improve their professional reputation

The University/funding organization

• Their reputation is on the line, they want to be represented well (which means the research has to have results that further the worlds understanding of this pathogen)
• They are most likely funding this research in hopes of a major breakthrough

The Locals

• They are motivated to help by the possibility of having clean drinking water
• Cleaner drinking water can likely draw in more tourists
• The locals also would probably like to build relationships with the researchers

The Government

• They can learn from the researchers, specifically they can learn how to develop education/prevention programs to help bring awareness to this pathogen
• The government obviously wants to improve public health and decrease the cost for health care
• They want to increase the local knowledge of the pathogen

The Chemical Additive Developers

• If the researchers can provide the necessary information, developing a chemical additive to combat the pathogen would be a lucrative opportunity

1. Formulate three alternative solutions

 

The ethical problem here is whether it’s okay to not pay locals who are taking time to help out with our research. By the phrasing of the prompt, it seems as though our team is just assuming that locals will be more than willing to help us without compensation. Additionally, are we doing enough as researchers to simply conduct the research and not formulate a plan to utilize the newfound information to help the people of Lesotho. With that in mind, here are three pathways forward.

 

1. Conduct the research as the prompt states. Assume the as researchers we are not obligated to solve the problem and that simply offering up the data that we collect will enable others better equipped to solve the problem. With this being said, compensation in the form of small favors (such as taking locals out to eat, or building sustainable relationships with them) should be distributed.
2. Once again continue the research as the prompt states (do not take direct action to solve the problem) and be prepared to compensate those based on how much they help. This should be a part of the budget, as it seems we would be relying heavily on local knowledge.
3. Reshape our research to include a plan to utilize the newfound knowledge to have a direct impact on Lesotho. In addition prepare accordingly to provide appropriate compensation for the locals who help with the research. Ensure that we have proper IRB approval before we go.
4. Someone in class mentioned something I really liked to, which is to just send a kit that locals can use to test the water themselves and collect the data themselves. 

 

1. Seek additional assistance, as appropriate

• Search the literature for other studies that have been conducted in Lesotho. It might be a good way to find locals that would be willing to participate and how to properly compensate them for their service.
• Reach out to local universities, towns, professionals to see if anyone else has already attempted to conduct this research 
• Find communities that are willing to help with the research, don’t just assume that they want our help
• Talk to our own university/funding agency to see what kind of advice they could give us

 

1. Select the best course of action

 

I think it would be best to reach out to local governments in Lesotho to try and gain their support before heading over. They will be able to put us in contact with individuals willing to help. I also  think the research plan should include a budget to compensate individuals who do choose to help us accordingly. I do think as well that it would be best if our research had a plan to utilize the data we collect, however considering this pathogen is found only in Lesotho, whatever knowledge we pass on to the greater academic community will be used to help clean the water in Lesotho.

 

1. What are the implications of your solution on the venture

 

Not really a venture, but I would say that our research will be used someday, maybe even at the same university, to eliminate the pathogen in the water in Lesotho.