Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Aging in context: Why culture matters in discussions on menopause
How do we age? Why do we age? And why are experiences of menopause and midlife so different across cultures? These are the driving questions behind the work of Melissa Melby, a medical anthropologist and professor at the University of Delaware. For more than 25 years, Melby has been exploring how biology and culture intersect to shape the way people experience aging and menopause. Her new book, Reframing Aging: Insights from Biology and Culture of Midlife Japanese, introduces a biocultural framework that goes beyond the “what” of aging to ask both how (the immediate mechanisms) and why (the deeper evolutionary reasons) we age and experience menopause the way we do. By weaving together insights from evolutionary biology, anthropology, medicine and lived experience, Melby challenges what many consider to be the “normal” path of midlife. Her research highlights how cultural expectations, medical practices, social structures and lifestyle habits can profoundly influence not just how symptoms are treated – but how they are perceived in the first place. What may be pathologized in one society could be understood as a natural stage of life in another. As conversations around women’s health, longevity and healthy aging gain overdue attention, Melby’s cross-disciplinary expertise offers journalists a fresh lens for exploring some of the most universal – and misunderstood – aspects of human life. For stories that bridge science, culture and health, Melby provides a rare perspective: one that reframes aging and menopause not as fixed biological destinies, but as experiences shaped by the complex interplay of our bodies, histories, and communities. Reporters interested in speaking to Melby can email mediarelations@udel.edu.
Georgia Southern biology professor named 2025-26 Fulbright U.S. Scholar to Vietnam
Stephen Greiman, Ph.D., associate professor of biology in Georgia Southern University’s College of Science and Mathematics, has been awarded a 2025-26 Fulbright U.S. Scholar award to Vietnam where he will lead a teaching and research project focused on parasite diversity in bats. “Dr. Greiman is further proof that Georgia Southern faculty are among the best in their fields,” said Avinandan (Avi) Mukherjee, Ph.D., provost and executive vice president for Academic Affairs. “We are incredibly proud of this achievement and all the hard work that goes into such a celebrated milestone paying off.” Greiman’s Fulbright work will build on more than a decade of collaboration with Vietnamese scientists. During graduate school, he began working with parasitologists in Vietnam and participated in field expeditions in 2013 and 2014. That early partnership has since blossomed into multiple co-authored publications and enduring collegial friendships. Vietnam, Greiman explained, is a natural fit for this project. “Its exceptional biodiversity and the significant burden of parasitic infections across humans, domestic animals and wildlife make it a particularly relevant and meaningful host country for my research,” he said. “Our shared goal is to advance awareness and understanding of parasite diversity among students and the public.” During his grant period, Greiman will teach a parasitology course at Hai Duong Medical Technical University. He will also conduct field and laboratory research in partnership with the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology’s Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources and the Department of Parasitology. His research will involve sampling and analyzing the parasites and microbiomes of Vietnamese bats—a project designed to engage both undergraduate and graduate students in hands-on scientific inquiry. “International collaborations often yield more impactful research than national projects alone,” Greiman noted. “This award not only strengthens our scientific goals but offers my family a chance to immerse ourselves in a new culture. It’s an experience we’re incredibly grateful for.” Beyond fieldwork, Greiman hopes the Fulbright project will open doors for new exchange programs between Georgia Southern and Vietnamese institutions. He envisions Georgia Southern students spending semesters abroad and returning with global perspectives that enrich their academic and personal growth. “The data and experiences I bring back will directly inform my courses, including parasitology and biology of microorganisms,” Greiman said. “I’ll also use our findings to support undergraduate and graduate research projects, pursue new grant opportunities and publish in high-impact journals.” He credits the Fulbright program with not only enabling his research abroad but also cultivating cultural exchange, particularly by allowing families to travel with awardees. His wife, who has a background in the arts, is excited to explore Vietnam’s artistic traditions, while their two young children will experience a culture far different from their own. “Vietnam is rich in natural and cultural history,” he said. “We’re looking forward to embracing it fully, both in the field and in everyday life.” Greiman’s selection is both a professional milestone and a personal journey—one shaped by long-standing collaborations, a deep commitment to global science, and the mentorship of Georgia Southern Vice President for Research and Economic Development David Weindorf, Ph.D. “Although I was initially hesitant to apply due to the program’s competitiveness, I was inspired by Dr. Weindorf’s own transformative experiences as a Fulbright Scholar and Specialist,” Greiman said. “His guidance and support helped me see the incredible potential of this opportunity—not just for my research, but for my family and our students.” That encouragement reflects a strong professional relationship rooted in mutual respect and a shared commitment to international collaboration. “I am so proud of Dr. Greiman’s selection as a Fulbright Scholar,” said Weindorf. “The benefits of the exchange will truly be lifelong, with new friends, colleagues and connections formed and cultivated. We look forward to celebrating the lives Dr. Greiman touches, both through his teaching and research, as a meritorious ambassador of Georgia Southern University.” For Greiman, the Fulbright award marks just the beginning of a broader vision. “This experience will generate foundational data for future National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health proposals and deepen our international partnerships,” he said. “Being selected as a Fulbright Scholar is an extraordinary honor and a chance to contribute meaningfully to a global legacy of scholarship, cultural exchange and scientific discovery.” He encourages fellow faculty members considering the program to apply. “Go for it,” he said. “Your chances are zero if you don’t try. The Fulbright is one of the few opportunities that blends extended research, cultural immersion and family inclusion. It’s life-changing—and absolutely worth it.” If you're interested in knowing more about Stephen Greiman's work or more about his Fullbright award - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Ashley Panichelli, M.D., has been appointed vice chair of the Department of Family and Community Medicine at ChristianaCare. In this role, Panichelli will support the department’s clinical and academic missions. She will help guide quality and safety initiatives and promote a culture of accountability, learning and psychological safety. She will advance education and professional development across faculty and residency programs, assist with strategic planning, mentorship and peer review, and strengthen collaboration across department leadership, faculty and staff. A Delaware native, Panichelli earned her medical degree from Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and completed her residency and chief residency in Family Medicine at ChristianaCare in 2018. She joined the residency program’s core faculty that same year and has since held several leadership roles, including clinical lead and associate program director. In 2022, she was named clinical director of Academic and Complex Primary Care, a role she continues to support. Panichelli is a clinical assistant professor at Sidney Kimmel Medical College and has been recognized with several honors, including the Delaware Academy of Family Physicians’ Teacher of the Year award and the Department’s Rising Star award. She completed ChristianaCare’s ACT course, the LEED-R elective, and the Harvard Medical Director Leadership Institute. She was an Emerging Leaders Institute scholar with the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation. She reports to Erin Kavanaugh, M.D., FAAFP, chair of the Department of Family and Community Medicine.
Are you ready for some football?
From its modest beginnings in the late 19th century to becoming America’s most-watched sport, professional football has not only entertained generations but also transformed communities, economies, and culture. Today, the National Football League (NFL) stands as a global brand, symbolizing both the triumphs and tensions of American life. Early Beginnings Professional football took root in the 1890s, when athletic clubs in Pennsylvania began paying players under the table. In 1920, a group of teams formed the American Professional Football Association, later renamed the NFL in 1922. Early decades were marked by instability, but the league grew steadily, and by the 1950s, with the rise of television, football began capturing national attention. The 1958 NFL Championship Game—dubbed the “Greatest Game Ever Played”—cemented football as America’s sport of the future, setting the stage for the AFL-NFL rivalry of the 1960s and the eventual Super Bowl, first played in 1967. Economic Impact Football is now one of the most powerful economic engines in American sports. The NFL generates more than $18 billion annually, with billions flowing into local economies through stadium construction, tourism, and broadcasting rights. Super Bowl weekend alone can inject hundreds of millions of dollars into host cities. The game has also reshaped industries—from sports broadcasting and advertising to fantasy leagues and legalized sports betting. It drives sponsorships, merchandise sales, and jobs connected to media, hospitality, and infrastructure. Social and Cultural Significance Football’s reach extends beyond the field. It has served as a stage for some of America’s most important social conversations—from racial integration in the 1940s, to gender roles in sports media, to the modern debates over player safety and activism. Figures like Jackie Robinson in baseball broke barriers, but in football, trailblazers such as Kenny Washington (first African American to reintegrate the NFL in 1946) helped reshape opportunity and inclusion. In more recent years, high-profile advocacy by players on issues ranging from racial justice to mental health has placed the sport squarely in the middle of national debates. At the same time, concerns about concussions and long-term health risks have fueled public dialogue on workplace safety and medical ethics, echoing issues seen across many industries. A Lasting Legacy Football is more than a game. It has become a unifying tradition—whether through Friday night lights in small towns, college rivalries that galvanize entire states, or Super Bowl Sunday as an unofficial national holiday. Its economic and cultural significance continues to expand, reflecting both America’s passion for competition and its ongoing social evolution. Connect with our experts about the history and significance of professional football in America: Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
4 out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. Compelled to disobey U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.” When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.” Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.” One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.” Soldiers, not lawyers But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S. “Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.” Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.” Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. Drawing the line As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.” Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. The last few weeks of summer, heading into Labor Day weekend, can sometimes mean vacations and driving more miles on the road for all people, including teens. Traffic crashes are the No. 1 cause of death for teens, and the crash rate for teen drivers is disproportionately higher than the share of licensed teen drivers. In addition to this grim statistic, summer is the riskiest time for teen drivers. The 100 deadliest days represent the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day when the number of fatal crashes involving teen drivers dramatically increases. A third of each year’s teen driver crashes occur during the summer. We are scholars who research transportation safety and teen driver behavior. Our expertise helps us understand that these 100 days are not just a statistical fluke – they reflect a dangerous intersection of factors such as inexperience and a propensity to take risks. What makes summer different? Regardless of the season, some teen drivers engage in risky behaviors that increase their likelihood of a fatal crash, such as getting distracted, driving with friends in the vehicle, driving under the influence, not wearing seat belts and a lack of hazard awareness. Teens also have more free time in the summer, since most aren’t in school. Combined with the longer days and better weather, teens drive more over the summer. More time on the road means more risk, especially for inexperienced drivers. Teens may also be more likely to drive after dark during the summer, in comparison to more experienced drivers. But nighttime driving is also when visibility is reduced and crash risks are higher, particularly for teens who haven’t fully developed the skills necessary for night driving. This increased exposure, in addition to teens’ general risky driving tendencies, contributes to the 100 deadliest days for teen drivers. The increased crash risk for teens over the summer isn’t equally distributed either. Crashes with teen drivers that lead to serious injuries are more likely to occur with male drivers, in rural areas, for those of lower socioeconomic status and for those with disorders, such as attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Teaching young drivers Driver’s education programs are the formal method to teach teen drivers the rules of the road. In driver’s education programs, teens receive information about driver and road safety though classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction in preparation for the licensing exam. Some states require teens to complete a driver’s education course if they want to receive a license under the age of 18. Of teens who have a license, nearly 80% of them have gone through some form of driver’s education. Though driver’s education programs can be helpful, their effects are not equally felt. In some states, teens and their guardians must pay out of pocket for driver’s education courses to obtain a license. This makes driver’s education and, as a consequence, obtaining a driver’s license inequitable. There are also driving school deserts – areas where the poverty rate is 20% or above and there are no behind-the-wheel driver education courses within a 10- to 15-minute drive. This makes driver education courses inaccessible. Many of these driving school deserts happen to be in areas with high populations of minorities. Over 20 years ago, graduated driver licensing was introduced to reduce teen crash rates. This is a phased licensing system wherein teen drivers are restricted in terms of when, where and with whom they can drive until they turn 18. Such a system allows teens to gradually learn and gain experience with driving over time. Graduated driver licensing has been implemented in all 50 states, and it has been shown to reduce teen driver crash rates. However, its effectiveness is limited to those who participate in the system. A large number of teens are unlicensed and are of low socioeconomic status. Many of these unlicensed teens forgo the entire process and remain unlicensed but still drive, well into their 20s when the graduated driver licensing restrictions are lifted. Making summer safer There are two things people can do to turn the 100 deadliest days into the 100 safest days. First, it is important that communities offer free supplementary training programs for teen drivers, because becoming a safe and responsible teen driver shouldn’t be limited to those with resources. As one example, in collaboration with industry partners, we have developed a program called Risk-ATTEND. It is a free, online, evidence-based program that teaches teen drivers how to anticipate risks while driving. Our research has shown that programs such as these can improve teen driving skills and may be especially effective for teen drivers in high-poverty areas. Second, our research has shown that parents and guardians still play an important role in influencing teen driver behavior. Studies show that teens mirror the behaviors they observe: If they see adults text and drive, they’re more likely to do the same. Once teenagers become old enough to drive, it is also important to establish rules and guidelines about expectations to establish clarity and accountability. Written agreements or checklists can address high-risk conditions such as nighttime driving, driving with other young passengers, phone use and adherence to speed limits. Systems to help monitor and enforce rules have been shown to be effective in improving teen driver behavior. One such program is Checkpoints, which is a Connecticut-based program in which families agree to limit teen driving during high-risk conditions. Teens face consequences for violating these limits, such as a temporary loss of driving privileges. However, the limits are gradually lifted as they gain driving experience. More than rules matter Ultimately, preventing crashes in the summer and beyond extends beyond mere adherence to regulations. Avoiding them fundamentally hinges on cultivating a robust safety culture that emphasizes a collective commitment to risk reduction and continuous improvement in driving practices. For teens, the summer months present unique challenges and opportunities. Drawing on best practices, such as training programs, teens can build essential skills in varied conditions before gaining full, unsupervised privileges.
Dr. Sameer Hinduja is one of the world’s foremost experts on cyberbullying, adolescent mental health, and digital safety. A Professor at Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Co-Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, he has advised the White House, testified before federal agencies, and worked with schools and tech companies worldwide to protect young people online. View Full Profile→ Amid the U.S. youth mental health crisis, his latest peer-reviewed study, published through FAU Newsdesk, reveals that hope not only boosts well-being and academic achievement but also acts as a powerful shield against bullying and cyberbullying in adolescents. Results, published in the journal Frontiers in Sociology, show that students with less hope were 56% more likely to cyberbully others than their peers over their lifetime, and 57% more likely over the last 30 days. Those with more hope were 36% less likely to cyberbully others over their lifetime and over the last 30 days when compared to their peers with lower levels of hope. The key takeaway? Hope matters. It buffers against the urge to aggress against others online and off. “Hope acts as a powerful protective factor against both school bullying and cyberbullying among youth,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., lead author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “When young people believe in their ability to set meaningful goals and stay motivated to reach them, they are far less likely to lash out or harm others. Hope gives them a sense of direction – and that can make all the difference.” Hinduja's previous research has been featured in The Washington Post, where he emphasized that cyberbullying is not just emotionally distressing—it can cause trauma responses in teens that mirror clinical Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “As our research clearly shows, cyberbullying in any form — whether it’s exclusion from a group chat or direct threats — can lead to significant trauma in youth,” Sameer Hinduja, a professor in Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the paper’s lead author, said in a news release. “We were surprised to find that no single type of cyberbullying caused more harm than others; all carried a similar risk of traumatic outcomes. This means we can’t afford to dismiss or trivialize certain behaviors as ‘less serious’ — being left out or targeted by rumors can be just as detrimental as more overt attacks.” Why This Matters Now As students return to school this fall, Hinduja’s research offers a clear reminder: digital harm is real harm. Emotional safety in online environments deserves the same urgency as physical safety in school buildings. His work calls for: • Preventive education over punitive responses • Trauma-informed approaches in schools • Support systems that validate and protect victims • Tech accountability and policy reform ⸻ Dr. Hinduja is available for media interviews on topics such as: Adolescent Mental Health • Cyberbullying • PTSD • Digital Safety • School Culture Click on the icon below to connect.
New research reveals how religious tattoos reflect a cultural – and generational – shift in how faith is expressed through permanent body art. Dr. Kevin D. Dougherty, professor of sociology at Baylor University, brings a unique lens to this evolving phenomenon. An award-winning educator and active researcher, Dougherty teaches both undergraduates and graduate students in areas of sociology, including courses on religion, teaching and organizational life. His research explores religious affiliation, participation, racial diversity in congregations and the ways faith intersects with politics, work and community. In a recent study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Dougherty and his co-authors – Texas Tech sociology professors Jerome R. Koch, Ph.D. and Paticia Maloney, Ph.D. – examine how tattoos—once seen as rebellious—are now being embraced as spiritual markers, particularly among younger generations. The study used national data from the 2021 Baylor Religion Survey, administered by Gallup to a random sample of 1,248 U.S. adults. The findings reveal that nearly 10% of American adults have tattoos with religious or spiritual significance – suggesting a major cultural shift in how lived religion is publicly and permanently expressed. “What we’re seeing is that tattoos are becoming modern-day sacred objects,” said Koch. “They’re permanent, deeply personal and often worn as both a proclamation of faith and a private reminder of belief.” The research challenges longstanding stereotypes that religious individuals avoid tattoos. While highly religious adults remain slightly less likely overall to be tattooed, younger people with strong religious commitment were the most likely to mark their faith visibly and permanently on their bodies. The study also points to a broader evolution in faith practices. Tattoos are now joining other forms of spiritual expression like jewelry and clothing—but with one major distinction: permanence. “A religious tattoo doesn’t come off. It travels with you,” said Dougherty. “It encourages continuity, a lasting connection to what you believe.” Dougherty’s interest in the topic was sparked during a classroom assignment, where students were asked to document tattoos on campus. He was struck by how many were linked to religious themes. “Tattoos that once marked the fringes of respectable society are now being redeemed as testimonies of belief,” he said. “They’re a reminder that faith—like culture—is always adapting, always finding new ways to speak.” For media inquiries and to connect with Kevin, click the icon below.
L to R: Professor Helen Wood, Annika Allen and Nadia Afiari (Image: Simon Roberts Photography) Aston University’s Professor Helen Wood led the research for Black Leaders in TV, a company championing Black TV professionals Black in Focus is the first report of its kind and highlights the prevalence, with 92% of respondents reporting prejudicial or discriminatory experiences Recommendations for improvements include mid-career support, changing how Black stories are commissioned and tackling racism and bullying. Black television professionals in the UK’s television industry continue to face persistent barriers to career progression, with progress towards equity and inclusion very slow, according to new research led by Aston University academics. The report, Black in Focus, was produced in partnership with Black Leaders in TV, a company set up to champion Black professionals in the UK television and content creation industry, committed to bridging the representation gap and creating a more inclusive and innovative industry. The research group was led by Professor Helen Wood, a professor of media and cultural studies at Aston University. It also included Aston University’s Dr Killian Mullen and Dr Priya Sharma, alongside Dr Jack Newsinger, associate professor in cultural industries and media at the University of Nottingham. The researchers surveyed 164 Black mid-career television professionals to learn about their experiences. While entry-level diversity efforts have sparked positive change, the researchers say that respondents generally see this as performative, with little genuine progress at mid and senior levels. Of those surveyed, 92% reported experienced microaggressions at work, defined as subtle, often unintentional, comments or actions that express prejudice or discrimination towards them, such as being mistaken for a taxi driver or colleagues continually mispronouncing a name. 80% stated that their careers in television have negatively impacted wellbeing. Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents said they had been ignored or excluded at work One of the biggest problems highlighted is a persistent ‘club’ culture with career progression often based on informal networks and hires. 91% of the survey respondents reported having no friends or family in the industry, blocking wider access and opportunity. Many Black television professionals still report being labelled as ‘diversity hires’, which negatively impacts their confidence and feeling of belonging in the industry. Black-Caribbean respondents and those from working-class backgrounds report heightened feelings of exclusion. Another major problem found by the report is in programme commissioning, with Black stories often viewed as commercially risky, leading to missed opportunities for richer, more authentic storytelling. The recommendations for improvement are grouped into four categories - breaking the mid-career bottleneck, commission, diversity initiatives, and racism, bullying and inclusion failures. To help with career bottlenecks, the authors’ suggestions include developing a national fellowship scheme to offer structured leadership training, shadowing, and commissioning exposure for Black professionals, setting up a centralised database for Black talent and supporting Black creatives though industry showcases. The television industry could tackle the problems with commissioning for example by incentivising Black-led narratives and requiring commissioning teams to complete anti-bias training. Diversity initiatives should move away from entry-level programmes towards structural change. This includes moving away from informal, network-based recruitment to structured, clear processes, and formalising promotion pathways. The television industry can tackle racism and bullying through zero-tolerance harassment policies, independent reporting mechanisms and sanctions, inclusive leadership training and developing mental health resources specifically tailored to Black professionals. Professor Wood said: “We can hear the voices of frustration in this survey and the data is clear about the problems. It’s time for the industry to use this evidence to take the next steps to deliver real, systemic change.” Black Leaders in TV founders Nadia Afiari and Annika Allen Gray said: “The findings make clear that, for UK television to truly reflect its diverse audiences and unlock creative innovation, the industry must move beyond surface-level diversity efforts. There needs to be support in place for Black professionals, greater transparency in recruitment and progression, and a fundamental shift towards inclusive, equitable workplace cultures.” Visit https://www.aston.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/Black_in_Focus_report.pdf to read Black in Focus in full.
Taming "The Bear": Villanova Professor Examines Workplace Toxicity in FX's Acclaimed Series
In the latest season of FX’s award-winning series “The Bear,” lead character and chef Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto finds himself at a crossroads. A culinary genius, Carmy has successfully overseen the reinvention of his family’s Italian beef shop as a high-end restaurant—shepherding a dedicated, if unpolished, crew of sandwich makers into a world of haute cuisine, fine wine and elevated service. However, over the course of this transition, his exacting standards have contributed to a culture of anxiety, dysfunction and resentment in the workplace. Despite staff members’ professional and personal growth, tempers still flare like burners on a range, with Carmy’s obsessive attention to detail and single-minded pursuit of perfection spurring conflict. By season’s end, grappling with the fallout from a mixed review seemingly influenced by the back-of-house “chaos,” the chef is forced to confront a complicated and thorny question: Am I getting in the way of my own restaurant’s success? Carmy’s dilemma, while fictional, reflects the very real challenges many modern businesses face when excellence is prioritized at the expense of psychological safety and workplace harmony. Per Manuela Priesemuth, PhD, who researches toxic work climates, aggression on the job and organizational fairness, the warning signs are all too frequently overlooked in high-pressure environments like restaurants. “Some high-stakes industries have a characteristic of having toxic behavior more accepted,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “When it’s more accepted or normed, it’s a real problem.” As she explains, workers in the food service industry, much like medical professionals in an operating room or military personnel in a combat zone, have a tendency to view measured communication and thoughtful interaction as a luxury or even, in some cases, a hindrance. Essentially, there’s a common misconception that working with an edge—yelling orders, avoiding dialogue and berating “underperformers”—gets the job done. “In all of these high-stakes environments where it’s thought there’s leeway to talk negatively or disparagingly, people are mistaken in the productivity result,” Dr. Priesemuth says. “It actually changes for the better in positive climates, because people who are treated with dignity and respect are better performers than those who are mistreated.” To Dr. Priesemuth’s point, research increasingly shows that workplace culture, not just talent or technical ability, is an essential driver of organizational success. In an environment like Carmy’s kitchen, where pride and passion often give way to personal attacks and shouting matches, the on-the-job dynamic can effectively undermine productivity. What may begin as an intended push for excellence can instead result in burnout, high turnover and weakened trust—outcomes that are especially problematic in collaborative, fast-paced industries like hospitality. “There’s even evidence that abusive behavior in restaurant settings can lead to food loss,” shares Dr. Priesemuth. “So, there is a sort of retaliation from the employees who are going through this experience, whether it’s measured [in profit margins] or impact on the customer.” In order to prevent these less-than-ideal outcomes, businesses should take steps proactively, says Dr. Priesemuth. More specifically, they should clearly articulate their values and expectations, considerately engage with their staff’s opinions and concerns and consistently invest in their employees’ growth and development. In the world of “The Bear,” a few of Carmy’s managerial decisions in the second season could be seen as moves in the right direction. At that juncture, he was leveraging his industry connections to provide his restaurant’s staff with the tools and training necessary to thrive in Chicago’s fine dining scene, building skills, confidence and goodwill. “If you give people voice—such as input on the menu, for example, or more autonomy in completing a certain task—it boosts morale,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “It helps people feel that they have input and that they are valued members of the team; it’s this sort of collaborative, positive relationship that increases commitment and performance.” Establishing this type of work culture, grounded in open communication, mutual respect and a shared sense of mission, takes concerted effort and constant maintenance. In situations in which toxicity has already become an issue, as it has in Carmy’s kitchen, the task becomes decidedly more difficult. Typically, it demands a long-term commitment to organizational change at the business’ highest levels. “Adjusting the tone at the top really matters,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “So, if the owner were to treat their chefs and waiters with the dignity and respect that they deserve as workers, that also trickles down to, for example, the customer.” A leader’s influence on workplace morale, she contends, is nuanced and far-reaching. When those in charge model a lack of empathy or emotional distance, for instance, a sort of toxicity can take root. Likewise, when they repeatedly show anger, animosity or frustration, those same feelings and attitudes can have an ingrained effect—regardless of a staff’s talent or ability. Given the outsized role owners, supervisors and managers play in shaping organizational culture, Dr. Priesemuth further notes, “Leaders must also feel that they’re being supported. You can’t have someone who’s exhausted, works 80 hours a week and has relationship and money issues and expect them to say, ‘What are your problems? What do you need?’” In many ways, her insights speak directly to the struggles Carmy faces and prompts throughout “The Bear’s” run. At every turn, he’s dogged by family and relationship troubles, mounting financial pressures and unresolved trauma from a past role. Ultimately, as would happen in real life, his difficulty in healthily processing and addressing these issues doesn’t just harm him; it affects his staff, manifesting itself as a need for control and a crusade for perfection. “There are spillover effects from your own personal life into your job role. In the management field, that has become increasingly clear,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “Whatever you’re going through, whether it’s from an old job or something personal, it will automatically spill over into your current work life and your interactions. And, vice versa, what’s happening to you at work will [impact you off the clock].” In dramatic fashion, the fourth season of “The Bear” concludes with Carmy acknowledging as much. Determining that there are other aspects of his life desperately in need of attention, he surrenders the reins of his business to chef de cuisine Sydney “Syd” Adamu and maître d’hôtel Richard “Richie” Jerimovich, appointing them part-owners. While the soundness of this decision remains a subject for the show’s next season, Carmy justifies the move with a blunt admission: “It’s the best thing for the restaurant. We have to put the restaurant first… I don’t have anything to pull from.” In the end, in both “The Bear” and management studies, there’s an understanding that building healthy and productive work environments requires active engagement and positive reinforcement on the part of leadership. In a sense, creating a strong work culture is shown to be a lot like preparing a phenomenal meal; it’s a matter of attentiveness, patience and care. Without those ingredients, the result could very well be a recipe for disaster.
