The following is a step-by-step approach to the problem of payment for research-aiding services in the developing nation of Lesotho. This approach aligns with my peer-developed perspective on the most effectual decision based in universal ethical and moral codes of conduct.

 

The facts:

1. We are planning on doing research on a disease-causing pathogen that is known to be polluting their water sources.
2. We need to gather water samples from different water sources, water transport containers and water storage containers.
3. Would will need the local community’s help in finding those different sources and containers.
4. Goal of project is to understand the lifecycle and characteristic of this disease-causing pathogen.
5. Paying community members for their help is optional.
6. Peers and colleagues back home, as well as myself, expect that my team’s research could result in multiple publications and water treatment solutions.
7. The research will be made public.
8. The community we are first visiting contains 75 families – that’s 500 people.
9. The locals in these communities travel frequently to the water sources to gather and drink the water.
10. My team is made up of 11 researchers (including myself) that will be there for 2 weeks.
11. My team wants to make the most of their time while on the ground.
12. In the end, it will cost around $60,000 to complete this research project.

 

The Stakeholders:

1. 11 Researchers
2. Research funders
3. Lesotho community members (everyone)
4. Lesotho community heads
5. Lesotho citizens who are helping us
6. Lesotho local government
7. Lesotho national government
8. Lesotho community health workers
9. South African national government

 

Key Stakeholder Motivations:

1. 11 Researchers
   1. Publications
   2. Potential for social impact
   3. Accomplishment within time frame
   4. Responsibility towards research funders
2. Research Funders
   1. Results in the form of bounties of analyzable data
   2. Results in the form of publications
   3. Smooth operations
3. Lesotho Community Members
   1. Health safety in form of clean water
   2. Professional respect for working with a foreign entity
4. Lesotho Local Government
   1. Increasing the overall quality of life for its citizens
   2. Developing relationships for future collaborative research opportunities
   3. Safety of its citizens

 

Our consequential ethical question: Is it ethical to perform research if the help of the local community is necessary to properly accomplish our goals? The fact that this is not a human research study means that there are no questions of ethical dilemmas in human-centered research. The ethical dilemma here is in how we can treat the local community with respect while conducting as much research as possible.

 

Three Alternative Solutions:

1. Reach out to the local community far ahead in advance to notify them that the team will need help, and to determine the structure of who we will get help from, when we will get that help, and where they will be taking us.
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Respect for Persons. The community is given all of the rights and responsibilities in determining what works for them while we are in-country.
   2. Pros: Community empowerment, easier for the research team, maximizes days doing research while on the ground.
   3. Cons: Does not take into account the perspectives, expertise or opinions of the researchers, might cause friction while in-country if the research doesn’t move fast enough.
2. Establish consistent communications with the community after landing in-country. Spend a couple of days working with local community workers to determine who we will be getting help from, when we will get that help, and where they will be taking us.
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Beneficence. We are working with together with the community to determine mutually beneficial decisions and protect each-other from harm.
   2. Pros: Develop a relationship with the community that will aid in making mutually beneficial planning decisions. Potential to maximize research opportunity while maximizing respect for the community.
   3. Cons: Potential for inability to collaborate and reach a decision.
3. Reach out to the local community far ahead in advance to tell them a structure of who we will need help from, when we will need that help, and where we will want to go.
   1. Ethical Principle or code: Justice. The community is given the choice to accept or deny our wishes as they fit for their own agenda.
   2. Pros: We are being transparent as to our intent, and giving the community the chance to decided how accommodating – if at all – that they want to be.
   3. Cons: Lack of dialogue will likely lead to a deal that is not mutually beneficial, the way we initially establish relations with the community can be perceived as disrespectful.

 

Pertinent Experience:

My in-country research experience in Philippines taught me that communication is paramount to getting buy-in and optimizing timely effectiveness. Our first day of research began with a round-table discussion that outlined all of our personal goals for the duration of the research timeline – 2.5 weeks. We realized through that discussion that two emergent groups would need to pursue parallel and reinforcing goals. We also re-evaluated the potential for effect that we had in locking in the contractual details that we had for our first customer order. When the two groups became too separated from having input on each-other’s work, they began to lose faith in each-others decided uses of time. These issues came to a head in heated conversations and socially tense non-work experiences where we used communication-aid skills like personal SWOT analysis to work past issues.

Best Solution:

The #2 solution of establishing consistent communications with the community after landing in-country is my preferred solution. This solution facilitates opinion and knowledge sharing between the research group and Lesotho community in the most effectual way. This gives us the potential to maximize our respect for them, while maximizing potential for effectiveness of our research.