2nd Case Study
-Nathaly Rodriguez, Robson Araujo Jr., Jakob Donoghue, Laura Marsiglio
Lesotho small developing country in South Africa.
Determine the facts in the situation
- Lesotho has a unique pathogen
- Going there for two weeks for research
- Testing water for disease causing pathogens
- Part of an academic research team (10 in total)
- Week visiting communities in Lesotho to test water sources for disease-causing pathogens.
Define the stakeholders & Assess the motivation of the stakeholders
Researchers:
- Understand the life cycle of the pathogen
- Disseminate the newfound knowledge to the greater academic community
- Possible personal motivation to help the community (?)
- Likely not primary motivation for research
- Meet their funders’ expectations/deadlines.
- At a personal level, one research may be driven by selfless goals, but others might be driven just by the professional aspect of it (e.g., getting their paycheck, obtaining an advanced degree)
University/The Funders
- Wants to be represented well (i.e., positive publicity), increasing reputation
- Advance the research, write manuscripts,
- Be involved in a major breakthrough for solving a healthcare problem.
The Locals (community members)
- Eliminate the pathogen in their water supply
- Build relationships with foreigners (?)
- Risks: community members may tell you what you want to hear; may be overly helpful to the point that they gain nothing from the interaction; may not want to acknowledge existence of disease
- More tourism if water is cleaner, which would grow local economy
The Locals (government bodies)
- Improve public health
- Decrease cost for health care
- Forge partnerships with the university
- Increase knowledge of local pathogen harming their water
- Learn how to develop education/prevention programs.
- If Lesotho exports their water to South Africa, they would be interested in receiving the research to be completed and possibly improve the quality of their water.
Academic Journal
- Further general body of knowledge
- Develop positive publicity for their brand
- Establish prestige
Ethical Problem
- What is the benefit to the community members?
- Do we pay them (locals), who do we pay, how do we choose them,
- How do we do the research — not in the hit and run manner — but in a beneficial and socially responsive way (e.g., capacity building, education programs, etc.)
- Think about the ripple effect that the intervention may cause. If possible expand the reach of the investigation .
- How would we negotiate entry? And who would we give incentive? How to balance rigor and ethics?
Formulate (at least three) alternative solution (different methods to make it ethical)
- Conduct the research as it is: the researcher is not obligated to solve the problem. Simply publishing their research will enable other, more well-equipped, entities to address the problem and implement it in the most culturally appropriate method. This assumes that no compensation is necessary for the community members who show the researchers the water source because the future benefits to the community resulting from the research will be adequate.
-
- Plan to start the research by acclimatizing themselves with the environment, learning about indigenous knowledge, and identifying possible local partners (e.g., volunteers, other groups that may have been working towards solving the issue)
- Pros:
- This will provide the researchers with the proper information to determine whether or not they should get involved and continue their research.
- It will also help them to determine appropriate incentives/compensation
- Cons:
- This can put a lot of strain on the community in terms of people coming in and intruding their space
- The community may not be responsive to helping out
- Pros:
- (Do not go there at all) Send probes for the locals to collect the research. Provide healthcare workers that are sanctioned/trusted/appointed by the locals. Prepare an introductory session to share the research objective with the responsible parties/locals. Provide education, provide food/drinks for their time, ask for them to appoint potential partners/volunteers to work
- Pros:
- Gives the locals a chance to be involved deeply with the research.
- Less invasive process
- Cons
- A lot to put on the locals
- They are not likely to be equipped to conduct the research
- Pros:
Seek additional assistance, as appropriate
- Search the literature for other studies that have been conducted in Lesotho, or similar participants. It might be a good and reliable source for learning about how to plan for incentives for potential participants/volunteers from the local communities.
- Reach out to local academics, professionals, or any responsible party that may have the knowledge the research group needs to better conduct their research procedures.
- Finding groups/organizations who are already addressing the problem
- Should the community provide resistance towards the research group, how to proceed? (we cannot assume locals will be willing to accept their intervention)
- The funding agencies may even point out collaborators/partners in Lesotho. That would facilitate the research group’s goals to be achieved and the research to successfully be carried out.
Next Steps:
- Discussed in group before making decision
- For each solution, what would be the implications?
- Are they going to create other issues (e.g., social inequities, environmental issues)?
- Money is not always the solution. It can even hinder the research procedure.
- Dynamics and tensions to do the right thing.
- Importance of building, maintaining, reinforcing, and expanding relationships.
- Decision:
- Option 2 of having a more well rounded research approach.
- The research itself is not problematic, however entering without understanding the culture or previous knowledge can hinder the research.
- In my group we discussed native knowledge and how that can be valuable information in not only understanding how to properly compensate/ incentivize the locals but also what they already know about the pathogen
- Collecting samples of the water is only one way to study to the samples, since the pathogen most likely has an impact on the community.
- Although this may be a lot for the locals, bringing in a small group a research who are there longer than two weeks can help with building trust
- Before going there the researchers should connect with potential helpers such as healthcare givers to start building the relationship
- This can also help with engaging members and allowing them to understand the benefits.