Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Expert Perspective: The Hidden Costs of Cultural Appropriation
In our interconnected world, cultural borrowing is everywhere. But why do some instances earn applause while others provoke outrage? This question is becoming increasingly crucial for business leaders who must carefully navigate cultural boundaries. Take the backlash the Kardashian-Jenner family faced for adopting styles from minority cultures or the controversy over non-Indigenous designers using Native American patterns in fashion. These examples highlight the issue of cultural appropriation, where borrowing elements from another culture without genuine understanding or respect can lead to accusations of exploitation. Abraham Oshotse, an assistant professor of organization and management at Goizueta Business School, along with Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Hebrew University Yael Berda and Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business Amir Goldberg, explores this in their research on “cultural tariffing.” They shed light on why high-status individuals, such as celebrities or industry leaders, often come under fire when crossing cultural boundaries. The Concept of Cultural Tariffing Oshotse and coauthors define cultural tariffing as “the act of imposing a social cost on cultural boundary crossing. It is levied on high-status actors crossing into low-status culture, in order to mitigate the reproduction of the status inequality.” This notion suggests that the acceptance or rejection of cultural boundary-crossing is influenced by the perceived costs and benefits. Cultural appropriation involves taking elements from a culture that one does not belong to, without permission or authority. For example, when Elvis Presley brought African-American music into the mainstream, it was initially seen as elevating the genre. However, in today’s context, such acts might be criticized as appropriation rather than celebration. This research seeks to analyze people’s modern reactions to different examples of cultural boundary-crossing and which conditions induce cultural tariffing. The Hypotheses The researchers make four hypotheses about participants’ reactions to cultural appropriation: People will disapprove of cultural borrowing if there’s a clear power imbalance, with the borrowing group having more status or privilege than the group they are borrowing from. Cultural borrowing is more likely to be criticized if the person doing it has a higher socioeconomic status within their social group. Cultural borrowing is more likely to be criticized if the person doing it has only a shallow connection to the culture they’re borrowing from. Cultural borrowing is more likely to be criticized if the person doing it benefits more from it than the people from the culture they are borrowing from. Put to the Test Oshotse et al exposed respondents to four scenarios per hypothesis (16 total) with a permissible and a transgressive condition. In the permissible condition, subjects exhibit lower status or socioeconomic standing or a stronger connection to the target culture. Subjects in the transgressive condition exhibit a higher status or socioeconomic standing and less of an authentic connection to the target culture. Insights from the Study Oshotse’s study offers four key insights: Status Matters: Cultural boundary-crossing is more likely to generate disapproval if there’s a clear status difference favoring the adopter. Superficial Connections: The less authentic the adopter’s connection to the target culture, the more likely they are to face backlash. Socioeconomic Influence: Higher socioeconomic status within the adopter’s social group increases the likelihood of disapproval. Value Extraction: The more value the adopter gains relative to the culture they’re borrowing from, the higher the disapproval. These insights are crucial for leaders who want to navigate cultural boundaries successfully, ensuring their actions are seen as respectful and inclusive rather than exploitative. Real-World Implications for Business Leaders Why does this matter for business leaders? Understanding cultural tariffing is crucial when expanding into new markets, launching multicultural campaigns, or even managing diverse teams. The research suggests that crossing cultural boundaries without deep understanding or respect can backfire. That’s especially true when the adopter holds a higher socioeconomic status. Consider the example of a luxury brand adopting traditional African patterns without engaging with the communities behind them. In this case, it risks being seen as exploitative rather than innovative. The consequences aren’t just reputational; they can also impact the brand’s bottom line. This research isn’t just about isolated incidents; it mirrors sweeping societal shifts. Over the past 50 years, Western views have evolved to embrace ethnic diversity and multicultural exchange. But with this newfound appreciation comes a fresh set of challenges. Today’s leaders must navigate cultural interactions with greater care, fully aware of the historical and social contexts that shape perceptions of appropriation. In today’s global and interconnected business landscape, mastering the subtleties of cultural appropriation and tariffing is crucial. Leaders who tread thoughtfully can boost their reputation and success, while those who falter may face serious backlash. By understanding the hidden costs of crossing cultural boundaries, business leaders can cultivate authentic exchanges and steer clear of the pitfalls of appropriation. Abraham Oshotse is an assistant professor of organization & management. He is available speak to media regarding this important topic - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Most companies around the world have a leader, whether that title is a President, CEO, or Founder. There’s almost always someone at the very top of a corporate food chain, and from that position down, the company is structured hierarchically, with multiple levels of leadership supervising other employees. It’s a structure with which most people in the working world are familiar, and it dates back as long as one can remember. The word itself—leader—dates back to as far as the 12th Century and is derived from the Old English word “laedere,” or one who leads. But in 2001, a group of software engineers developed the Agile Workflow Methodology, a project development process that puts a priority on egalitarian teamwork and individual independence in searching for solutions. A number of businesses are trying to embrace a flatter internal structure, like the agile workflow. But is it necessarily the best way to develop business processes? That’s the question posed by researchers, including Goizueta Business School’s Özgecan Koçak, associate professor of organization and management, and fellow researchers Daniel A. Levinthal and Phanish Puranam in their recently published paper on organizational hierarchies. “Realistically, we don’t see a lot of non-hierarchical organizations,” says Koçak. “But there is actually a big push to have less hierarchy in organizations.” Part of it is due to the demotivating effects of working in authoritarian workplaces. People don’t necessarily like to have a boss. We place value in being more egalitarian, more participatory. Özgecan Koçak, Associate Professor of Organization & Management “So there is some push to try and design organizations with flatter hierarchies. That is specifically so in the context of knowledge-based work, and especially in the context of discovery and search.” Decoding Organizational Dynamics While the idea of an egalitarian workplace is attractive to many people, Koçak and her colleagues wanted to know if, or when, hierarchies were actually beneficial to the health of organizations. They developed a computational agent-based model, or simulation, to explore the relationships between structures of influence and organizational adaptation. The groups in the simulation mimicked real business team structures and consisted of two types of teams. In the first type, one agent had influence over the beliefs of rest of the team. For the second type, no one individual had any influence over the beliefs of the team. The hierarchical team vs. the flat structured team. “When you do simulations, you want to make sure that your findings are robust to those kinds of things like the scale of the group, or the how fast the agents are learning and so forth,” says Koçak. What’s innovative about this particular simulation is that all the agents are learning from their environment. They are learning through trial and error. They are trying out different alternatives and finding out their value. Özgecan Koçak Koçak is very clear that the hierarchies in the simulation are not exactly like hierarchies in a business organization. Every agent was purposefully made to be the same without any difference in wisdom or knowledge. “It’s really nothing like the kinds of hierarchies you would see in organizations where there is somebody who has a corner office, or somebody who is has a management title, or somebody’s making more than the others. In the simulation, it’s nothing to do with those distributional aspects or control, and nobody has the ability to control what others do in (the simulation). All control comes through influence of beliefs.” Speed vs. Optimal Solutions What they found in the simulation was that while both teams solved the same problems presented to them, they achieved different results at different speeds. We find that hierarchical teams don’t necessarily find the best solution, but they find the good enough solution in the shorter term. So if you are looking at the really long term, crowds do better. The crowds where individuals are all learning separately, they find the best solution in the long run, even though they are not learning from each other. Özgecan Koçak Özgecan Koçak (pronounced as ohz-gay-john ko-chuck) is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She holds a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. For example, teams of scientists looking for cures or innovative treatments for diseases work best with a flat structure. Each individual works on their own timeline, with their own search methodologies. The team only comes together for status updates or to discuss their projects without necessarily getting influence or direction from colleagues. The long-term success of the result is more important in some cases than the speed at which they arrive to their conclusion. That won’t work for an organization that answers to a board of directors or shareholders. Such parties want to see rapid results that will quickly impact the bottom line of the company. This is why the agile methodology is not beneficial to large-scale corporations. Koçak says, “When you try to think about an entire organization, not just teams, it gets more complicated. If you have many people in an organization, you can’t have everybody just be on the same team. And then you have to worry about how to coordinate the efforts of multiple teams. That’s the big question for scaling up agile. We know that the agile methodology works pretty well at the team level. However, when firms try to scale it up applied to the entire organization, then you have more coordination problems. Özgecan Koçak “You need some way to coordinate the efforts with multiple teams.” The Catch: Compensation Makes a Difference The simulation did not take into account one of the biggest parts of a corporate hierarchical structure—incentives and reward. The teams in the simulation received no monetary compensation for their leadership or influence. That is not something that happens in real life. Koçak says, “If you built up an organization with just influence, you just say we’re not going to have any authority, and we’re not going to give anybody the right to control anybody else’s actions. If we’re not going to be rewarding anyone more than the other, there’s not going to be any marks of status, etc. We’re just going to have some people influence others more. I would guess that would automatically lead to a prestige hierarchy right away. The person with more influence, you would start respecting more.” It’s almost like we’re incapable of working in a flat society, because somebody always wants to be or naturally becomes a leader and an influencer whether they planned on it or not. Özgecan Koçak The paper concludes that both methodologies, with either hierarchical and flat organization of teams, reach their goals. They just arrive at different times with different end results. If an organization has the luxury of time and money, a flat, agile methodology organization might be the right structure for that company. However, even agile workflow needs some coordination, according to Koçak. “There are also some search tasks that require coordination. You can’t always be searching on your own independently of others. There are some situations in which search needs to be done in a coordinated fashion by more than one person in teams. That’s because many of the knowledge-based settings where we do discovery require some division of labor, some specialization by expertise.” Communication is Key The key to any successful workflow, whether it be agile or hierarchical, is coordination and communication. Looking back to the example of scientific researchers, Koçak said, “You have scientific teams working independently of one another without a common boss dictating what they do research on or how they do it. Instead, they explore and experiment on their own. They write up their results, share their results, and learn from each other, because they are in the long-term game. The goal is to find the truth, however long it takes. “But when you look closely at a scientific team where everybody’s exploring, there is still some need for coordination. A lot of that happens through communication, and a lot of times projects will have a lead. Not necessarily somebody who knows better than the others, but somebody who’s going to help with coordination.” The leaner, flatter organizational structures in businesses might be gaining popularity. This simulation done by Koçak and colleagues, however, shows that it isn’t a perfect fit for every company, Further, some form of hierarchical workflow is necessary to maintain communication and coordination. Hierarchical structures don’t always find the best solution to a problem, but it’s almost always a good solution in a timelier fashion. Looking to know more? Özgecan Koçak is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She is available to speak with media about this topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Hormone Supplementation in Rhesus Monkeys Points to Potential Autism Treatment
For years, Florida Tech’s Catherine Talbot, assistant professor of psychology, has worked to understand the sociality of male rhesus monkeys and how low-social monkeys can serve as a model for humans with autism. Her most recent findings show that replenishing a deficient hormone, vasopressin, helped the monkeys become more social without increasing their aggression – a discovery that could change autism treatment. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that one in 36 children in the United States is affected by autism spectrum disorder (ASD). That’s an increase from one in 44 children reported in 2018. Two FDA-approved treatments currently exist, Talbot said, but they only address associated symptoms, not the root of ASD. The boost in both prevalence and awareness of the disorder prompts the following question: What is the cause? Some rhesus monkeys are naturally low-social, meaning they demonstrate poor social cognitive skills, while others are highly social. Their individual variation in sociality is comparable to how human sociality varies, ranging from people we consider social butterflies to those who are not interested in social interactions, similar to some people diagnosed with ASD, Talbot said. Her goal has been to understand how variations in biology and behavior influence social cognition. In the recent research paper published in the journal PNAS, “Nebulized vasopressin penetrates CSF [cerebral spinal fluid] and improves social cognition without inducing aggression in a rhesus monkey model of autism,” Talbot and researchers with Stanford, the University of California, Davis and the California National Primate Research Center explored vasopressin, a hormone that is known to contribute to mammalian social behavior, as a potential therapeutic treatment that may ultimately help people with autism better function in society. Previous work from this research group found that vasopressin levels are lower in their low-social rhesus monkey model, as well as in a select group of people with ASD. Previous studies testing vasopressin in rodents found that increased hormone levels caused more aggression. As a result, researchers warned against administering vasopressin as treatment, Talbot said. However, she argued that in those studies, vasopressin induced aggression in contexts where aggression is the socially appropriate response, such as guarding mates in their home territory, so the hormone may promote species-typical behavior. She also noted that the previous studies tested vasopressin in “neurotypical” rodents, as opposed to animals with low-social tendencies. “It may be that individuals with the lowest levels of vasopressin may benefit the most from it – that is the step forward toward precision medicine that we now need to study,” Talbot said. In her latest paper, Talbot and her co-authors tested how low-social monkeys, with low vasopressin levels and high autistic-like trait burden, responded to vasopressin supplementation to make up for their natural deficiency. They administered the hormone through a nebulizer, which the monkeys could opt into. For a few minutes each week, the monkeys voluntarily held their face up to a nebulizer to receive their dose while sipping white grape juice – a favorite among the monkeys, Talbot said. After administering the hormone and verifying that it increased vasopressin levels in the central nervous system, the researchers wanted to see how the monkeys responded to both affiliative and aggressive stimuli by showing them videos depicting these behaviors. They also compared their ability to recognize and remember new objects and faces, which is another important social skill. They found that normally low-social monkeys do not respond to social communication and were better at recognizing and remembering objects compared to faces, similar to some humans diagnosed with ASD. When the monkeys were given vasopressin, they began reciprocating affiliative, pro-social behaviors, but not aggression. It also improved their facial recognition memory, making it equivalent to their recognition memory of objects. In other words, vasopressin “rescued” low-social monkeys’ ability to respond prosocially to others and to remember new faces. The treatment was successful – vasopressin selectively improved the social cognition of these low-social monkeys. “It was really exciting to see this come to fruition after pouring so much work into this project and overcoming so many challenges,” Talbot said of her findings. One of Talbot’s co-authors has already begun translating this work to cohorts of autism patients. She expects more clinical trials to follow. In the immediate future, Talbot is examining how other, more complex social cognitive abilities like theory of mind – the ability to take the perspective of another – may differ in low-social monkeys compared to more social monkeys and how this relates to their underlying biology. Beyond that, Talbot hopes that they can target young monkeys who are “at-risk” of developing social deficits related to autism for vasopressin treatment to see if early intervention might help change their developmental trajectory and eventually translate this therapy to targeted human trials. Catherine F. Talbot is an Assistant Professor in the School of Psychology at Florida Tech and co-director of the Animal Cognitive Research Center at Brevard Zoo. Dr. Talbot joined Florida Tech from the Neuroscience and Behavior Unit at the California National Primate Research Center at the University of California, Davis, where she worked as a postdoc on a collaborative bio-behavioral project examining naturally occurring low-sociability in rhesus monkeys as a model for the core social deficits seen in people with autism spectrum disorder, specifically targeting the underlying mechanisms of social functioning. If you're interested in connecting with Catherine Talbot - simply contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.
With Rise in US Autism Rates, Florida Tech Expert Clarifies What We Know About the Disorder
A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that an estimated 1 in 31 U.S. children has autism; that's about a 15% increase from a 2020 report, which estimated 1 in 36. The latest numbers come from the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, which tracked diagnoses in 2022 among 8-year-old children. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurological disorder that refers to a broad range of conditions affecting social interaction. People with autism may experience challenges with social skills, repetitive behaviors, speech and nonverbal communication. The news has experts like Florida Tech's Kimberly Sloman, Ph.D, weighing in on the matter. She noted that the definition of autism was expanded to include mild cases, which could explain the increase. “Research shows that increased rates are largely due to increased awareness and changes to diagnostic criteria. Much of the increase reflects individuals who have fewer support needs, women and girls and others who may have been misdiagnosed previously," said Sloman. Her insight follows federal health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent declaration, vowing to conduct further studies to identify environmental factors that could cause the disorder. In his remarks, he also miscategorized autism as a "preventable disease," prompting scrutiny from experts and media attention. “Autism destroys families,” Kennedy said. “More importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which is our children. These are children who should not be suffering like this.” Kennedy described autism as a “preventable disease,” although researchers and scientists have identified genetic factors that are associated with it. Autism is not considered a disease, but a complex disorder that affects the brain. Cases range widely in severity, with symptoms that can include delays in language, learning, and social or emotional skills. Some autistic traits can go unnoticed well into adulthood. Those who have spent decades researching autism have found no single cause. Besides genetics, scientists have identified various possible factors, including the age of a child’s father, the mother’s weight, and whether she had diabetes or was exposed to certain chemicals. Kennedy said his wide-ranging plan to determine the cause of autism will look at all of those environmental factors, and others. He had previously set a September deadline for determining what causes autism, but said Wednesday that by then, his department will determine at least “some” of the answers. The effort will involve issuing grants to universities and researchers, Kennedy said. He said the researchers will be encouraged to “follow the science, no matter what it says.” April 17 - Associated Press Sloman emphasized that experts are confident that autism has a strong genetic component, meaning there's an element of the disorder that may not be preventable. However, scientists are still working to understand the full scope of the disorder, and much is still unknown. “We know that there’s a strong genetic component for autism, but environmental factors may interact with genetic susceptibility," Sloman said. "This is still not well understood.” Kimberly Sloman’s research interests include best practices for treating individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). She studies the assessment and treatment of problem behavior with methods such as stereotypy, individualized skill assessments and generalization of treatment effects. Are you covering this story or looking to know more about autism and the research behind the disorder? Let us help. Kimberly is available to speak with media about this subject. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Chemical and Life Science Engineering Professor Michael “Pete” Peters, Ph.D., is investigating more efficient ways to manufacture biologic pharmaceuticals using a radial flow bioreactor he developed. With applications in vaccines and other personalized therapeutic treatments, biologics are versatile. Their genetic base can be manipulated to create a variety of effects from fighting infections by stimulating an immune response to weight loss by producing a specific hormone in the body. Ozempic, Wegovy and Victoza are some of the brand names for Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists used to treat diabetes. These drugs mimic the GLP-1 peptide, a hormone naturally produced in the body that regulates appetite, hunger and blood sugar. “I have a lot of experience with helical peptides like GLP-1 from my work with COVID therapeutics,” says Peters. “When it was discovered that these biologic pharmaceuticals can help with weight loss, demand spiked. These drug types were designed for people with type-2 diabetes and those diabetic patients couldn’t get their GLP-1 treatments. We wanted to find a way for manufacturers to scale up production to meet demand, especially now that further study of GLP-1 has revealed other applications for the drug, like smoking cessation.” Continuous Manufacturing of Biologic Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals come in two basic forms: small-molecule and biologic. Small-molecule medicines are synthetically produced via chemical reactions while biologics are produced from microorganisms. Both types of medications are traditionally produced in a batch process, where base materials are fed into a staged system that produces “batches” of the small-molecule or biologic medication. This process is similar to a chef baking a single cake. Once these materials are exhausted, the batch is complete and the entire system needs to be reset before the next batch begins. “ The batch process can be cumbersome,” says Peters. “Shutting the whole process down and starting it up costs time and money. And if you want a second batch, you have to go through the entire process again after sterilization. Scaling the manufacturing process up is another problem because doubling the system size doesn’t equate to doubling the product. In engineering, that’s called nonlinear phenomena.” Continuous manufacturing improves efficiency and scalability by creating a system where production is ongoing over time rather than staged. These manufacturing techniques can lead to “end-to-end” continuous manufacturing, which is ideal for producing high-demand biologic pharmaceuticals like Ozempic, Wegovy and Victoza. Virginia Commonwealth University’s Medicines for All Institute is also focused on these production innovations. Peters’ continuous manufacturing system for biologics is called a radial flow bioreactor. A disk containing the microorganisms used for production sits on a fixture with a tube coming up through the center of the disk. As the transport fluid comes up the tube, the laminar flow created by its exiting the tube spreads it evenly and continuously over the disk. The interaction between the transport medium coming up the tube and the microorganisms on the disk creates the biological pharmaceutical, which is then taken away by the flow of the transport medium for continuous collection. Flowing the transport medium liquid over a disc coated with biologic-producing microorganisms allows the radial flow bioreactor to continuously produce biologic pharmaceuticals. “There are many advantages to a radial flow bioreactor,” says Peters. “It takes minutes to switch out the disk with the biologic-producing microorganisms. While continuously producing your biologic pharmaceutical, a manufacturer could have another disk in an incubator. Once the microorganisms in the incubator have grown to completely cover the disk, flow of the transport medium liquid to the radial flow bioreactor is shut off. The disk is replaced and then the transport medium flow resumes. That’s minutes for a production changeover instead of the many hours it takes to reset a system in the batch flow process.” The Building Blocks of Biologic Pharmaceuticals Biologic pharmaceuticals are natural molecules created by genetically manipulating microorganisms, like bacteria or mammalian cells. The technology involves designing and inserting a DNA plasmid that carries genetic instructions to the cells. This genetic code is a nucleotide sequence used by the cell to create proteins capable of performing a diverse range of functions within the body. Like musical notes, each nucleotide represents specific genetic information. The arrangement of these sequences, like notes in a song, changes what the cell is instructed to do. In the same way notes can be arranged to create different musical compositions, nucleotide sequences can completely alter a cell’s behavior. Microorganisms transcribe the inserted DNA into a much smaller, mRNA coded molecule. Then the mRNA molecule has its nucleotide code translated into a chain of amino acids, forming a polypeptide that eventually folds into a protein that can act within the body. “One of the disadvantages of biologic design is the wide range of molecular conformations biological molecules can adopt,” says Peters. “Small-molecule medications, on the other hand, are typically more rigid, but difficult to design via first-principle engineering methods. A lot of my focus has been on helical peptides, like GLP-1, that are a programmable biologic pharmaceutical designed from first principles and have the stability of a small-molecule.” The stability Peters describes comes from the helical peptide’s structure, an alpha helix where the amino acid chain coils into a spiral that twists clockwise. Hydrogen bonds that occur between the peptide’s backbone creates a repeating pattern that pulls the helix tightly together to resist conformational changes. “It’s why we used it in our COVID therapeutic and makes it an excellent candidate for GLP-1 continuous production because of its relative stability,” says Peters. Programming The Cell Chemical and Life Science Engineering Assistant Professor Leah Spangler, Ph.D., is an expert at instructing cells to make specific things. Her material science background employs proteins to build or manipulate products not found in nature, like purifying rare-earth elements for use in electronics. “My lab’s function is to make proteins every day,” says Spangler. “The kind of proteins we make depends entirely on the project they are for. More specifically I use proteins to make things that don’t occur in nature. The reason proteins don’t build things like solar cells or the quantum dots used in LCD TVs is because nature is not going to evolve a solar cell or a display surface. Nature doesn’t know what either of those things are. However, proteins can be instructed to build these items, if we code them to.” Spangler is collaborating with Peters in the development of his radial flow bioreactor, specifically to engineer a microorganismal bacteria cell capable of continuously producing biologic pharmaceuticals. “We build proteins by leveraging bacteria to make them for us,” says Spangler. “It’s a well known technology. For this project, we’re hypothesizing that Escherichia coli (E. coli) can be modified to make GLP-1. Personally, I like working with E. coli because it’s a simple bacteria that has been thoroughly studied, so there’s lots of tools available for working with it compared to other cell types.” Development of the process and technique to use E. coli with the radial flow bioreactor is ongoing. “Working with Dr. Spangler has been a game changer for me,” says Peters. “She came to the College of Engineering with a background in protein engineering and an expertise with bacteria. Most of my work was in mammalian cells, so it’s been a great collaboration. We’ve been able to work together and develop this bioreactor to produce GLP-1.” Other Radial Flow Bioreactor Applications Similar to how the GLP-1 peptide has found applications beyond diabetes treatment, the radial flow bioreactor can also be used in different roles. Peters is currently exploring the reactor’s viability for harnessing solar energy. “One of the things we’ve done with the internal disc is to use it as a solar panel,” says Peters. “The disk can be a black body that absorbs light and gets warm. If you run water through the system, water also absorbs the radiation’s energy. The radial flow pattern automatically optimizes energy driving forces with fluid residence time. That makes for a very effective solar heating system. This heating system is a simple proof of concept. Our next step is to determine a method that harnesses solar radiation to create electricity in a continuous manner.” The radial flow bioreactor can also be implemented for environmental cleanup. With a disk tailored for water filtration, desalination or bioremediation, untreated water can be pushed through the system until it reaches a satisfactory level of purification. “The continuous bioreactor design is based on first principles of engineering that our students are learning through their undergraduate education,” says Peters. “The nonlinear scaling laws and performance predictions are fundamentally based. In this day of continued emphasis on empirical AI algorithms, the diminishing understanding of fundamental physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics that underlie engineering principles is a challenge. It’s important we not let first-principles and fundamental understanding be degraded from our educational mission, and projects like the radial flow bioreactor help students see these important fundamentals in action.”
5 Reasons Why Experts Should Drive Your Content Marketing Strategy
It’s a fact: buyers today don’t want to be prospected, demoed, or closed. Whether it’s a procurement officer on the other end of the phone, a prospect reviewing a product online, or a journalist assessing the credibility of a potential spokesperson, “buyers” today expect a more authentic, reliable and practical experience when getting to know an organization, product or service. That’s why understanding how your expertise fits into the buyer’s journey to attract attention, drive interactions and earn trust is becoming critical to success. For marketers today the purchase process has increased in complexity. Today, audiences advance through a process known as the buyer’s journey” – the research and decision-making process that customers go through which progresses from awareness to evaluation and ultimately purchase. The Shift to Expertise Marketing In the early days of marketing and sales, organizations practiced a features oriented “buy what I have” approach; however, these traditional product-oriented marketing approaches are failing to yield the benefits they once did. Audiences have become far more sophisticated. Research clearly shows that expert content is setting the bar for relevance, credibility and attractiveness for every stage of the buyer journey. Here’s 5 major trends you need to know plus some helpful tips to help you deal with this reality. #1 – Buyers Have Shifted into Self-Serve Mode When Researching Purchases Approximately 67% of the buyer’s journey is complete prior to contacting a vendor (Source: Sirius Decisions) The research continues to show that many buyers would sooner help themselves to content rather than speak to a salesperson, especially in the early stage of the buyer journey. Audiences are increasingly venturing online to doing more of their own research to validate the buying decision. And they are digging deeper into content and are looking to see the people you have on board to support their decision-making. Tip: Remember that people buy from people. Think about how you can create a more human user experience by giving your experts and their content more profile on your website to drive engagement and build trust. It’s time to go beyond simple headshots and biographies to develop a richer amount of supporting information that feeds your website and search engines. #2- The Buyer Journey is More Collaborative & Non-Linear Than Ever Its clear that the traditional linear sales funnel has disappeared. In B2B markets, buyers now engage with an average of 11.4 pieces of content prior to making a purchase (Source: Forrester Research). They are now more likely to bounce around in a variety of sites. Tip: Evaluate the touchpoints you provide with expert content across your websites and how they interact at various buyer stages, from initial search to content to the connection process. In the end are you making it easy for buyers to engage with the content your experts have to offer? #3 – Experts are a Top Source of Influence in Purchase Behavior Research by the Information Technology Sales and Marketing Association (ITSMA) has consistently ranked subject-matter experts as a top source of information influencing purchase behavior in B2B, higher consideration purchases. In this new model, buyers validate the purchase decision by seeking out reliable information from trusted sources. Decisions such as what lawyer to choose; what IT platform to invest in or where to study for graduate school can be very positively influenced by expert content. Tip: Ensure you have engaging expert content available online to support buyers across all stages of the buyer journey. Remember they may be looking for additional validation as well as education. #4 – The Buying Process is More Inclusive than Ever with Multiple Personas Playing a Part In addition to consulting industry peers on social media channels, buyers work with colleagues inside their organizations when making purchase decisions. Marketers and salespeople cannot be content with focusing on key decision makers. If you aren’t known company-wide this will present challenges. Tip: Marketers must reach the broader buying group in an organization, which means making larger amounts of expert content with messages targeted to specific personas. Weaving experts into the discussion and engaging more departments within a buyer’s organization will help wield influence on the final buying decision. #5 – Feeding the Search Engines The Right Content Matters More Than Ever According to a Google/Millward Brown study, 71% of business purchases begin with a non-branded search. These generic queries, are from people looking for product first, not for a specific brand or organization name. Huge improvements in organic search rank are possible once when your content is optimized to support the customer at all phases of the buyer journey. Expert content, in the form of articles, infographics, or videos, not only strengthens the trust relationship with your buyer, but also reinforces your value and expertise with search engines. you pay a little more attention to the information structure on your website and add assets such as multimedia content to expert profiles. Search engines continue to reward well developed expert content that has personal attribution with higher trust and authority rankings as it views this content as more relevant. Tip: Start with some tests using Google and Bing to assess how your experts are surfacing on key topics. Also do some searches on the names of your experts to see what position they surface at organically. Where possible add videos, photos, audio, books and social content that you can add to their profiles. Also ensure that the information is properly tagged to allow search engines to properly index this content. About ExpertFile ExpertFile is changing the way organizations tap into the power of their experts to drive valuable inquiries, accelerate revenue growth, and enhance their brand reputation. Used by leading corporate, higher education and healthcare clients worldwide, our award-winning platform helps teams structure, manage and promote their expert content while our search engine features experts on over 50,000+ topics. Learn more at: www.expertfile.com/getstarted.
Digital Dementia: Does Technology Use by ‘Digital Pioneers’ Correlate to Cognitive Decline?
As the first generation that interacted with digital technology reaches an age where dementia risks emerge, scientists have asked the question: Is there a correlation between digital technology use and an increased risk of dementia? With the phrases “brain rot” and “brain drain” circulating on social media, it would appear that most people would assume the answer is yes. However, a new study in Nature Human Behavior by neuroscientists at Baylor University and the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School reveals the opposite – digital technologies are actually associated with reduced cognitive decline. The study – A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging – was sparked by the ongoing concern about the passive activity of digital technologies and their relation to accelerating risks of dementia. Study co-authors are Jared F. Benge, Ph.D., clinical neuropsychologist and associate professor of neurology at Dell Medical School and UT Health Austin’s Comprehensive Memory Center within the Mulva Clinic for the Neurosciences, and Michael K. Scullin, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor. “You can flip on the news on just about any day and you’ll see people talking about how technologies are harming us,” Scullin said. “People often use the terms ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain rot,’ and now digital dementia is an emerging phrase. As researchers, we wanted to know if this was true.” The “digital dementia” hypothesis predicts that a lifetime of exposure to digital technology will worsen cognitive abilities. On the contrary, the study’s findings challenge this hypothesis, indicating instead that engagement with digital technology fosters cognitive resilience in these adults. Reviewing more than 136 studies with data that encompassed over 400,000 adults, and longitudinal studies with an average of 6 years of follow-up data, Scullin and Benge found compelling evidence that digital technology use is associated with better cognitive aging outcomes, rather than harm. The researchers’ study supported the “technological reserve” hypothesis, finding that digital technologies can promote behaviors that preserve cognition. In fact, their study revealed that digital technology use correlates with a 58% lower risk of cognitive impairment. This pattern of cognitive protection persisted when the researchers controlled for socioeconomic status, education, age, gender, baseline cognitive ability, social support, overall health, and engagement with mental activities like reading that might have explained the findings. Increase in problem-solving skills Scullin said that for some, these findings are surprising as technology use is often associated with being sedentary both physically and mentally. However, for the current generation of older adults who were introduced to the first technological advancements – computers, the Internet and smartphones – past their childhood, using technology is cognitively challenging because it is everchanging. “One of the first things that middle-age and older adults were saying is that ‘I’m so frustrated by this computer. This is hard to learn.’ That's actually a reflection of the cognitive challenge, which may be beneficial for the brain even if it doesn’t feel great in the moment.” Scullin said. Technology requires constant adaption, he said, such as understanding new software updates, troubleshooting Internet loss or filtering out website ads. “If you’re doing that for years and you’re really engaging with it, even though you might experience frustration, that may be a sign of you exercising your brain,” he said. Social connection Technology also enables communication and engagement like never before, which can expand opportunities for connectivity. Video calls, emails and messaging apps help maintain social networks, especially for people who would not otherwise regularly see their family members. “Now you can connect with families across generations,” Scullin said. “You not only can talk to them, you can see them. You can share pictures. You can exchange emails and it's all within a second or less. So that means there's a greater opportunity for decreasing loneliness.” Better social connectedness is a well-documented correlate of cognitive functioning in older adults, providing a link between decreased isolation from digital technologies and reduced risks of dementia. Impact of “digital scaffolding” A dementia diagnosis is indicated in part when cognitive changes lead to a loss of independence with daily tasks. Tools such as digital reminders, GPS navigation and online banking allow older adults to remain independent despite cognitive difficulties through digital scaffolding. According to the research article, this digital scaffold “facilitates better functional outcomes in older adults while general cognitive functioning declines.” Technologies can serve as a compensatory support system to maintain general independence and reduce the risk of a dementia diagnosis even with the presence of some cognitive decline. “As clinical practice continues to move toward an individualized, precision-medicine approach, it will be necessary for the field to identify for whom and for how long, such digital scaffolding is effective,” the researchers said. Promoting healthy technology use While Scullin recognizes the negative effects of technology, such as distracted driving or using technology over consistent face-to-face interaction, he also emphasizes how promoting a healthy use of digital tools in older adults is beneficial for their cognitive health. “If you have a parent or grandparent who’s just staying away from technology, maybe revisit that. Could they learn to use photo, messaging, or calendar apps on a smartphone or tablet? Start simple and be very patient while they learn,” he said. Social media use is another highly debated topic in terms of cognitive effects. While he says it’s hard to predict the cognitive effects of endlessly scrolling on TikTok, Scullin does argue that generating videos through creative cognition could be beneficial. In addition, he said that interacting with communities online can provide benefits by forming social connections. “We could spend a long time talking about all the specific ways in which technology use can be bad. However, the net effect since the 1990s has been positive for overall cognition in older adults,” he said. FUNDING The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01AG082783; M.K.S., J.F.B.). Michael Scullin was named Baylor’s inaugural Newsmaker of the Year in 2018, after his “to-do list” research was widely covered by media outlets, including ABC’s Good Morning America, TODAY.com, USA TODAY, Discover, LiveScience, HealthDay, BBC Radio and many more, reaching an international circulation and viewership of nearly 1 billion people. Looking to interview or chat with Michael Scullin? Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
A Brief History of Stock Market Crashes
Stock market crashes have punctuated economic history with sudden downturns that reshape public confidence, policy decisions, and financial systems. From the Great Depression to the 2008 financial crisis, these events have not only disrupted global economies but also exposed systemic vulnerabilities and sparked reforms. As markets face ongoing volatility and new risks, understanding the history of stock market crashes—and the factors behind them—is vital for investors, policymakers, and the general public. This topic offers journalists compelling opportunities to explore financial history, economic psychology, and risk management. Key story angles include: The Great Depression (1929): Analyzing the causes of the most infamous crash in history and its lasting impact on global economic policy. Black Monday (1987): Investigating the role of computerized trading and investor panic in one of the largest one-day percentage drops in stock market history. Dot-Com Bubble (2000): Exploring how tech speculation and investor overconfidence led to the collapse of early internet startups. The 2008 Global Financial Crisis: Examining the role of housing market speculation, subprime lending, and financial deregulation in triggering a global recession. Behavioral Economics and Market Psychology: Understanding how fear, speculation, and herd behavior contribute to market volatility. Are We Due for Another Crash? Looking at current economic indicators, tech valuations, interest rates, and global tensions that could signal future instability. With markets continuing to respond to global events and economic shifts, revisiting the history of crashes offers valuable insights into how financial systems react under pressure—and how societies can better prepare for what comes next. Connect with an expert about the History of Stock Market Crashes: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com
University of Delaware's physical therapy program ranked #1 graduate school in the U.S.
The University of Delaware's physical therapy program has been ranked #1 in the 2026 edition of Best Graduate Schools, U.S. News and World Report. The program has revolutionized the use of prosthetics, helped students become trainers for Super Bowl champions and boasts unique specialized training. Darcy Reisman, chair of the program, can talk about the following: Research: One study incorporated walking into daily behavior for stroke patients. Our PT researchers have also revolutionized the use of prosthetics to improve the lives of those who have lost limbs. Professional outcomes: Two of our PT grads were on the Philadelphia Eagles’ training staff during their Super Bowl run. Another is working in Major League Soccer with a Tennessee-based team. Specialized training: UDPT has an accredited Manual Fellowship Program that provides post-professional training for physical therapists in the specialized area of Manual Therapy.Research In total, U.S. news ranked 24 UD graduate programs among the best in the nation. Among those, 13 were in the top 50, including chemical engineering at #8.
NASA Grant Funds Research Exploring Methods of Training Vision-Based Autonomous Systems
Conducting research at 5:30 a.m. may not be everybody’s first choice. But for Siddhartha Bhattacharyya and Ph.D. students Mohammed Abdul, Hafeez Khan and Parth Ganeriwala, it’s an essential part of the process for their latest endeavor. Bhattacharyya and his students are developing a more efficient framework for creating and evaluating image-based machine learning classification models for autonomous systems, such as those guiding cars and aircraft. That process involves creating new datasets with taxiway and runway images for vision-based autonomous aircraft. Just as humans need textbooks to fuel their learning, some machines are taught using thousands of photographs and images of the environment where their autonomous pupil will eventually operate. To help ensure their trained models can identify the correct course to take in a hyper-specific environment – with indicators such as centerline markings and side stripes on a runway at dawn – Bhattacharyya and his Ph.D. students chose a December morning to rise with the sun, board one of Florida Tech’s Piper Archer aircraft and photograph the views from above. Bhattacharyya, an associate professor of computer science and software engineering, is exploring the boundaries of operation of efficient and effective machine-learning approaches for vision-based classification in autonomous systems. In this case, these machine learning systems are trained on video or image data collected from environments including runways, taxiways or roadways. With this kind of model, it can take more than 100,000 images to help the algorithm learn and adapt to an environment. Today’s technology demands a pronounced human effort to manually label and classify each image. This can be an overwhelming process. To combat that, Bhattacharyya was awarded funding from NASA Langley Research Center to advance existing machine learning/computer vision-based systems, such as his lab’s “Advanced Line Identification and Notation Algorithm” (ALINA), by exploring automated labeling that would enable the model to learn and classify data itself – with humans intervening only as necessary. This measure would ease the overwhelming human demand, he said. ALINA is an annotation framework that Hafeez and Parth developed under Bhattacharyya’s guidance to detect and label data for algorithms, such as taxiway line markings for autonomous aircraft. Bhattacharyya will use NASA’s funding to explore transfer learning-based approaches, led by Parth, and few-shot learning (FSL) approaches, led by Hafeez. The researchers are collecting images via GoPro of runways and taxiways at airports in Melbourne and Grant-Valkaria with help from Florida Tech’s College of Aeronautics. Bhattacharyya’s students will take the data they collect from the airports and train their models to, in theory, drive an aircraft autonomously. They are working to collect diverse images of the runways – those of different angles and weather and lighting conditions – so that the model learns to identify patterns that determine the most accurate course regardless of environment or conditions. That includes the daybreak images captured on that December flight. “We went at sunrise, where there is glare on the camera. Now we need to see if it’s able to identify the lines at night because that’s when there are lights embedded on the taxiways,” Bhattacharyya said. “We want to collect diverse datasets and see what methods work, what methods fail and what else do we need to do to build that reliable software.” Transfer learning is a machine learning technique in which a model trained to do one task can generalize information and reuse it to complete another task. For example, a model trained to drive autonomous cars could transfer its intelligence to drive autonomous aircraft. This transfer helps explore generalization of knowledge. It also improves efficiency by eliminating the need for new models that complete different but related tasks. For example, a car trained to operate autonomously in California could retain generalized knowledge when learning how to drive in Florida, despite different landscapes. “This model already knows lines and lanes, and we are going to train it on certain other types of lines hoping it generalizes and keeps the previous knowledge,” Bhattacharyya explained. “That model could do both tasks, as humans do.” FSL is a technique that teaches a model to generalize information with just a few data samples instead of the massive datasets used in transfer learning. With this type of training, a model should be able to identify an environment based on just four or five images. “That would help us reduce the time and cost of data collection as well as time spent labeling the data that we typically go through for several thousands of datasets,” Bhattacharyya said. Learning when results may or may not be reliable is a key part of this research. Bhattacharyya said identifying degradation in the autonomous system’s performance will help guide the development of online monitors that can catch errors and alert human operators to take corrective action. Ultimately, he hopes that this research can help create a future where we utilize the benefits of machine learning without fear of it failing before notifying the operator, driver or user. “That’s the end goal,” Bhattacharyya said. “It motivates me to learn how the context relates to assumptions associated with these images, that helps in understanding when the autonomous system is not confident in its decision, thus sending an alert to the user. This could apply to a future generation of autonomous systems where we don’t need to fear the unknown – when the system could fail.” Siddhartha (Sid) Bhattacharyya’s primary area of research expertise/interest is in model based engineering, formal methods, machine learning engineering, and explainable AI applied to intelligent autonomous systems, cyber security, human factors, healthcare, explainable AI, and avionics. His research lab ASSIST (Assured Safety, Security, and Intent with Systematic Tactics) focuses on the research in the design of innovative formal methods to assure performance of intelligent systems, machine learning engineering to characterize intelligent systems for safety and model based engineering to analyze system behavior. Siddhartha Bhattacharyya is available to speak with media. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.