Case Study #1 – September 3, 2019

This week our goal was to examine a case study that took place in Lesotho, South Africa. The study stated that we, researchers, would be studying the water in this country for potential pathogens to determine if the water is the source of the pathogens. The testing that we need to do is simple but we really need the help of the community to show us around to the different water sources. We are debating whether or not we need to pay the people who help us and if it is ethical to conduct this study. Our ultimate goal is to collect the data and publish papers regarding the water source.

The questions that need to be asked are:

1. Is this case study ethical to conduct
2. Should people be compensated for the work and resources that they are doing/using
   1. Assumption being made: the people would want to help out for free since it is their water sources that would potentially be fixed

The facts of the case are:

1. 10 researchers are traveling to this community for two weeks
2. Data will be collected on the water samples to test for the pathogens
3. Unsure about whether or not to pay the community members for their help

Stakeholders at play and their motivations:

1. Organizations (Investor, Universities, Companies, Funders, etc.)
   1. Wanting a better reputation for their organization
   2. Return on the investment
   3. To further academic studies and obtain grant money/funding
   4. Contribute back to society – make them feel good about what they’re doing
   5. Attract new students/employees
2. Research Team (US)
   1. Spread awareness for the pathogen
   2. Publish papers and get invited to conferences for the research we collected
   3. Moral fulfillment
3. Community Members
   1. Potentially improved water sources and improved quality of life
   2. Increase safety for their fellow members
   3. Protect the children and the way they are being raised – improve their future
   4. Stronger sense of community
4. Large Scale Government
   1. Political, capital, and economic opportunities and benefits
   2. Improve the potential quality of water throughout the country if this is the source of the pathogen
   3. Health and well being of their constituents (get votes as well)
5. Neighboring Communities
   1. Protect themselves before a potential outbreak could occur in their direct region

Some of the alternative methods that we came up with:

1. We could partner with an established and credible NGO that already has a name in the country
   1. Similarly to how we partnered with World Hope International in Sierra Leone and it opened a lot of doors for us. We were able to use their resources and people were more willing to trust us as a research group because they knew that WHI was a credible source and if we were working with them, by association we must be credible as well.
   2. PROS
      1. The NGO would get to decide who got paid and who did not
      2. It would lessen the logistical and financial burden on us and we as researchers could focus more on the research aspect of the trip
      3. The NGO would hopefully already have standards and we could follow those protocols already in place rather than going in and working with these locals without any rules behind us
   3. CONS
      1. It would be more difficult to do anything because there would always be an overhead that would have to approve of your decisions
      2. You would not have as much control or freedom to complete the project the way that you would want to
      3. You may have to do more things for the NGO to be a mutualistic partnership – for example, while we were in Sierra Leone, there were some tasks that we as a group had to do that had nothing to do with our project just because we wanted a good relationship with WHI
2. We could hire specific community members to complete the tasks that we need them to
   1. Similarly to how we just hired the translators in Sierra Leone for the job/hours that they worked rather than going and trying to ask random community members to help us out
   2. PROS
      1. You would know exactly who to pay and how much to pay them
      2. There would be more direct control over the finances
   3. CONS
      1. There would be fewer resources so it once again would be more difficult to get things done
      2. Less credibility in the research project and us as a group
3. We could also just educate the community about the potential dangers they are in and hope that they would want to help us out for free knowing that we are ultimately trying to help them
   1. PROS
      1. We wouldn’t have to pay anyone or worry about anyone being concerned about not being paid
      2. Mutualist benefits between us and the community
   2. CONS
      1. There could easily be mistranslation between us and the community and they might not understand perfectly what we are trying to accomplish
      2. There could be power dynamics and white saviorism at play

 

After much consideration, I believe that the best method would be a combination of the first two. There is already an NGO working in this specific area of South Africa, Global Water Partnership, and I believe that by working with them, or an organization like theirs we would be able to get more done because of the credibility backing us up. Additionally, I believe that we would have to ultimately pay whoever we get to help us, whether they are personal drivers for the next two weeks, translators, logistic coordinators, etc. because it would ensure that we were able to get all the data points that we needed but also we can be sure that we’re not manipulating them or taking advantage of them in any means. This solution would be better suited for our goals compared to the other solutions we proposed, like just educating the people, because educating people would seem like we are coming in as white-saviors trying to show the locals that we have the knowledge that they don’t have. Additionally, if our research team were to come to this country and offer knowledge that we had and asked in return that the locals help us out without pay, there could be a strange power dynamic at play.

While we were in Sierra Leone we had the opportunity to work with our own personal translators and drivers. Despite not having to need them twenty-four seven we were able to compensate them for the time that we did use them. We did not have to worry about who needed to be paid because we were only paying a few people and we were able to keep track of how much work they actually did for us.

However, a problem that we personally encountered and one that could occur with this potential solution would be that if the people you employee aren’t competent at the job you’re paying them to do. Not everyone is great at the things you need them to do. For example, we were given three translators and two interns to help us in any way that we needed them. However, two of them weren’t helpful at all so we had to heavily rely on the three employees that were good. If we were to employee a few people at the village in the case study and once we started working with them, we realized they weren’t the beset people for the job, we would just have to make do.

The implications of this decision would be that we are working with a local NGO to help them also get a name for themselves. Having the partnership with the NGO allows them to know that they are helping out but also it acts as our own personal safety net. We won’t have to worry about all the nitty gritty logistical aspects because we can just follow what the NGO’s protocols are and it takes a large burden off of us, the researchers. Additionally, by partnering with the NGO, we would be able to focus solely on the research that we need to conduct and then we would be able to make accurate conclusions about the water sources.   Based on our research, there could be potential water treatment plans, new technologies for purifying water, or pathogen killers that could be invented and implemented into these local water sources.I believe that yes it can be ethical to conduct this study but only if handled the proper way which I think is paying the people and partnering with an NGO.

Also, if this research is successful, the implications of these research venture on the social aspect would be the locals could have an improved living conditions. Technologically, there could be implications because from the research, other scientists, or even our team, could create a solution to address and remove the pathogens from the water source that would again improve the quality of living for the locals and the country of Africa as a whole. Environmentally, it would improve the ecosystems because more organisms could survive in the water sources without the pathogen present and then economically, it could possibly stimulate the economy because it could provide more jobs to the locals in the areas of cleaning up the water sources and buying the pathogen solution.