Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Expert Insight: The Hidden Costs of Staying Neutral

Considering the number of hot-button issues and divisiveness in American culture, choosing a middle-of-the-road attitude might be seen as the best way to navigate an often volatile environment. But what about those individuals who choose neutrality as a means of staying below the radar and, thereby, avoiding the need to take any action? This is the question that Laura Wallace, assistant professor of organization and management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, and coauthors ask in their new paper, The Preference for Attitude Neutrality. Published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, the researchers explore individuals with a preference for neutrality and how their uncompromising commitment to neutral opinions, not only discourages rigorous debate but could have a deleterious impact on society. Emory Business recently caught up with Wallace to discuss her research. Emory Business: What sparked your interest in the preference for neutrality? Wallace: When we think about the problems in the world, often people point to too many extreme opinions as the source of much social ill, and, of course, they can be. But, when I thought about a lot of the issues that I cared about, like addressing climate change or gun violence, I felt that sometimes the issue was too much neutrality in the face of issues that were themselves pretty extreme. When I talk about this work, people can often picture someone who seems like a “Pref Neutral,” as we have affectionately nick-named them, that is someone who in the face of information suggesting that there is an extreme problem is not moved to address the issue. I could think of people in my life who had these reactions, and I was interested in understanding more about them. Emory Business: How did you identify these individuals? Wallace: We developed a scale to assess the extent to which people view neutrality as truer, more socially desirable, and more moral. For example, we ask people how much they agree with items like, “If you have all the facts about a topic, your opinion will generally end up somewhere neutral” and “There is something noble about remaining in the middle about controversial topics.” The more someone agrees with these items, the more we would say they have a preference for neutrality. Emory Business: How does this study fit in with your larger body of work? Wallace: I generally think of my program of research as studying the “psychology of social change.” Within that broad category, I study 1) how to change minds and build trust and 2) how to address societal disadvantage. I view this work as fitting in the first bucket about how we change people’s minds. What interests me about people who are high in the preference for neutrality is the fact that they seem to NOT change their minds in the face of extreme information suggesting that they should. These individuals represent a significant barrier to our ability to address pressing issues, so I view this work as very much tied into the overarching goal of my research program to understand social change (or the lack thereof). Laura Wallace is an assistant professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Wallace studies how to build trust with implications for addressing societal disadvantage, changing minds, and fostering growth. View her profile Emory Business: Would you describe a preference for neutrality to be a mindset, strategy, or attitude/value? Wallace: I think of the preference for neutrality like an ideology or value system that guides people’s reactions across many issues and situations. Emory Business: Talk about the study design. It’s quite detailed and multilayered, with eight hypotheses and six different measures to account for potential bias that were then randomized to create different questionnaires given to a large pool of individuals. How did the coauthors agree on the structure? Wallace: First, I should take the opportunity to shout out Thomas Vaughan-Johnston, who led this work. He is a faculty member at Cardiff University and is just a very thoughtful, interesting researcher, and he’s great to work with. Second, there are a number of studies in the paper. For each, our research team worked together to design and interpret the studies. The paper paints a relatively negative view of Pref Neutrals. We did take measures to resist bias in our design. For instance, we didn’t just ask people how much they dislike extremists (which would have been biased towards making those with a preference for neutrality look bad), but also asked about attitudes towards neutrals (where those with a preference for neutrality may seem like “the nice people”). We are now starting research on contexts where a preference for neutrality can offer some advantages, hopefully without artificially striking a false balance. For instance, we are considering whether they can help reduce group polarization effects, especially where groups drift towards radicalism in conversation. Also, we have some preliminary data where they seem to be a bit more accurate when detecting neutral emotions and attitudes in others, which is a remarkable plus side. Basically, we think the preference for neutrality is a social concern, but we are trying to be fair-minded when considering why they think this about neutrality and when this trait is useful for the world. Emory Business: In the study, you note that preference for neutrality can be a sign of arrogance and that Pref Neutrals are uninterested in learning more or changing their stance. How is this arrogance exhibited? Wallace: I would say that they are more close-minded than arrogant and that they don’t seem to be particularly thoughtful. One way we have assessed this is by measuring their “intellectual humility,” which essentially captures how much people recognize the limits of their own perspectives and are open to changing their minds. Pref Neutrals tend to score low on intellectual humility. They also score a little low on the “need for cognition,” which captures how much people like to think. Emory Business: In one section it reads: “preference for neutrality (preference for extremity) should relate to seeing other people as moral, competent, and likeable, when those individuals have generally neutral (extreme) opinions.” Does this mean that they align with people who have their same opinion structure? Wallace: We find that people who score high on the preference for neutrality scale tend to have more favorable impressions of others who are more neutral and tend to be more persuaded by others who are labeled as holding neutral attitude positions. Emory Business: How would one identify this trait in a person, particularly, when the research shows they tend to self-censor? Wallace: In general, they are really hesitant to take stances on issues or they tend to avoid taking sides or expressing strong positions. And yes, they tend to self-censor, meaning they often avoid sharing their opinion at all. Emory Business: How does this preference for neutrality play out in a political sense? Specifically, if they are averse to extremes would they vote based on their values? Wallace: We have a lot of evidence that Pref Neutrals tend to be political centrists. We don’t have evidence for this, but I suspect that they sit out a lot of elections, and to the extent that they do vote, they favor more moderate candidates. They probably would not vote for a position or individual with an extreme view unless it was framed as neutral. This may sound like a silly, cerebral point, but I actually think it’s critical to the point we are making, as what is viewed as “extreme” in a given time is often socially determined. For example, now it would be viewed as an extreme stance to support slavery. However, in the early 1800s in the U.S., it would have been viewed as an extreme stance to oppose slavery. I imagine at the time, many Pref Neutrals were supportive of slavery as a means of being politically moderate. Emory Business: What was the most interesting result in this study for you? Wallace: We find that if you give Pref Neutrals the exact same information but label it as extreme or neutral, they are more persuaded by the exact same information when it is labeled as neutral. This results in a kind of ironic effect where they actually end up with a more extreme opinion when information has been labeled as neutral. Emory Business: Research wise, what’s next for you? Wallace: There are a few ways that we are following up on our work that I am excited about: First, we’re trying to understand more about how Pref Neutrals maintain neutral opinions in the face of extreme information. So, we are giving Pref Neutrals true, extreme facts, and then examining their thoughts to determine how they resist taking the extreme positions information would suggest that they should. Second, we thought that Pref Neutrals would be particularly likely to trivialize social issues, to say they are unimportant. We are actually finding that they rate all social issues as extremely important, which we are trying to understand more about. We suspect they might do this as a strategy to avoid taking action on social issues. If stubbed toes and human trafficking are both “extremely” important, then there are just too many issues to take action on, and so they are able to justify a lack of action. Third, we are interested in understanding what it is like to make decisions in a group with a Pref Neutral. There is a lot of evidence that groups tend to make bad decisions because people want to agree with each other. This might actually be an area where Pref Neutrals would shine – the fact that they don’t want to take a stance may force groups they are a part of to really think things through and make better decisions. This is all super preliminary, but it reflects the exciting work ahead and that there is much more to understand about these folks!

U.S. National Debt: How to Stop the Bleeding

The U.S. national debt exceeding the size of the American economy is a dubious milestone that has sparked alarm and confusion among policymakers who are asking how worried they should be and what can be done to stop the bleeding. David Primo, a political scientist and professor of business administration at the University of Rochester and a fiscal policy expert who has testified before Congress on the national debt, says Americans should be very concerned about the debt and, at the same time, know there is a solution. “The federal budget outlook is grim and threatens the economic future of the United States,” says Primo, the author of Rules and Restraint: Government Spending and the Design of Institution (University of Chicago Press). “If Congress waits to act, Americans will need to give up a bigger piece of the nation’s economic pie to stabilize the country’s finances.” Primo says a solution lies in a constitutional amendment restraining the federal budget. Specifically, such an amendment would clearly define spending and revenue, set spending limits based on a multiyear period, and allow for waiving the limit only with a large supermajority in Congress. “As it stands, Congress is constitutionally incapable of tying its own hands, making it difficult for legislators to implement durable changes to the federal budget,” Primo says. Recent data show the national debt has crossed 100% of the GDP threshold — roughly $31.27 trillion versus $31.22 trillion in economic output — marking the highest peacetime level in U.S. history. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that debt levels, if left unchecked, could reach 181% of GDP in the next 30 years. Primo says delaying implementing a solution raises the risk of increased interest rates, which would, in turn, reduce investment and, ultimately, economic growth. For journalists covering deficits, tax policy, and the long-term economic outlook, Primo offers key expertise and a clear lens on: • The implications of national debt exceeding GDP • Constitutional and institutional approaches to fiscal reform • Fiscal policy and political incentives “The United States is in precarious fiscal health,” Primo told Congress in 2023. “In the absence of a constitutional amendment, I fear it will take a fiscal crisis before Congress acts. Nobody wants that.” Connect with Primo by clicking on his profile.

When the Cheque Stops Coming: Canada Post, Seniors, and the Quiet Cost of Modernization

There’s an old line that has saved more awkward conversations than most of us care to admit: “The cheque is in the mail.” It has been used to buy time, soften bad news, and occasionally stretch the definition of truth. But it worked because, deep down, everyone believed the premise. The mail would come. Eventually. Reliably. Without negotiation. That quiet assumption carried a surprising amount of weight — especially for the 79-year-old navigating an icy driveway. Now, it seems, even that assumption is up for review. I understand the economic argument. Big Losses: The official Canada Post 2024 Annual Report shows they have racked up $3.8 billion in losses since 2018.  Lower Letter Volumes: The shift to email has hit Canada Post hard.  Letter volumes have dropped dramatically.  Less in the mailbag equals far less revenue to offset costs.  Increasing Costs Factors: The number of Canadian addresses continues to grow. The math is not subtle, and change is clearly required.  But this deserves more attention.  Modernization is not the problem. Thoughtless modernization is. Cuts to Canada Post Service May Not Land Equally Not all Canadians experience change the same way, and this particular shift will land unevenly if proper consultation isn't done. We're getting older: According to Statistics Canada, nearly one in five Canadians is now over the age of 65, and that proportion continues to rise. A meaningful share of those older Canadians also live outside major urban centers. We're spread out geographically: Depending on how you measure it, we're also far apart compared to most other countries.  According to the Public Health Agency of Canada & the Vanier Institute of the Family, roughly one-quarter to one-third of seniors live in rural or small communities, where services are more dispersed, and distances are longer. Rural Canada is also aging faster than urban Canada. In other words, the places most likely to lose convenient access are often the places with the highest concentration of people who rely on it. This is not a niche issue. It is a structural one. The Real Issue Isn’t the Mailbox. It’s the Journey. Policy discussions tend to reduce this to a simple question of location. Move the mailbox, problem solved.  But the issue is not where the mailbox is. The issue is whether someone can get to it safely, consistently, and without turning a routine task into a risk calculation. I am thinking of a client. She is 79, sharp, organized, and fully in charge of her life. Her bills are paid on time, her paperwork is immaculate, and she has no interest in becoming dependent on anyone.  In the summer, she walks daily without a second thought. In the winter, she studies the ground before every step. Ice changes everything. A short walk becomes a decision. A slightly longer one becomes a concern. For her, a community mailbox is not a mild inconvenience. It is a variable she now has to manage.  That is the difference between designing for the ideal user and designing for the real one. Mail Still Matters More Than We Pretend There is a quiet assumption that everything important has already moved online. That assumption works well for people who are comfortable navigating digital systems. It does not work for everyone. For many seniors, mail remains the backbone of how they manage their lives. Pension statements, government notices, insurance documents, tax slips, prescription information, and replacement banking cards still arrive in envelopes, not inboxes. And yes, occasionally, an actual cheque. The phrase “the cheque is in the mail” may be fading, but the need behind it has not disappeared. For some Canadians, that envelope still represents income, security, and peace of mind. Digital systems are efficient when they work. When they do not, they can be frustrating and, at times, risky. One expired password or one convincing phishing email can turn a simple task into an afternoon of confusion. It is easy to underestimate the value of paper systems when you no longer rely on them. It is harder to replace them when you still do. Efficiency Has a Way of Moving Downward There is a pattern in modern service design worth naming. Call it effort laundering: the practice of shifting work from institutions to individuals in the name of efficiency. We see it in banking, where branches quietly disappear. We see it in healthcare systems that assume patients are comfortable online. We see it in customer service models built around apps and automated menus. And now we may see it in mail delivery. Where the service moves from your front door to a location you must reach yourself. For many Canadians, this is manageable. For others, it is not. When the burden of efficiency lands on those least able to absorb it, the system may be efficient on paper but inequitable in practice. If Change Is Necessary, It Should Be Smarter I understand that change is necessary. The cost differences between door-to-door delivery and centralized delivery are real, and the financial pressures on Canada Post are not going away. But the choice is not between doing nothing and eliminating access. There is a middle path, and other countries have already explored it. In Norway, proposed postal reforms included reducing delivery frequency to once per week. Following public consultation, the government stepped back earlier this year from that plan and maintained more frequent delivery, recognizing the impact on certain populations (Norwegian Ministry of Transport, 2026). In the United Kingdom, the regulator Ofcom has examined reducing delivery to 5 or even 3 days per week as a way to manage costs while preserving universal service (Ofcom, 2025). Research from Sweden and New Zealand shows that older adults rely more heavily on traditional mail systems than the general population, particularly for official and financial communication (Crew & Kleindorfer, 2012; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2021). These examples point to a practical conclusion. Reducing frequency can achieve savings without removing access. Eliminating access altogether is a different decision with different consequences. Canada Is Not Denmark Denmark has gone further than most, effectively ending traditional letter delivery after a dramatic decline in mail volumes of roughly 90 percent since 2000. The move is often cited as a model of modernization. It should be considered with caution. Denmark operates within a context of high digital adoption, a compact geography, and milder weather conditions. Notably, Canada’s digital divide among seniors is more pronounced than Denmark’s, meaning the proportion of older Canadians who cannot easily go online is higher to begin with. Even so, a significant number of Danish residents have been classified as "digitally exempt" and continue to rely on alternative arrangements to receive essential communications (PostNord, 2025). Canada is not Denmark. Our geography is larger, our winters are harsher, and our population is more dispersed.  Also, we play better hockey.  If Home Delivery Changes, People Will Adapt Canadians are remarkably adaptable, and seniors are often the most resourceful of all. If home delivery is reduced, practical solutions will emerge. Neighbours will organize. Families will build mail pickup into regular visits, turning a logistical task into a reason to connect. Some seniors will finally set up paperless billing, one account at a time. These are workable adjustments. But they should be supported by thoughtful policy, not forced by avoidable design choices. The Problem With Accommodation Accommodation programs will likely exist, but their effectiveness depends on how easy they are to access. Systems that require people to search, apply, document their needs, and follow up repeatedly tend to favour those with the time and persistence to navigate them. The seniors who most need support are often the least inclined to engage in that process. The real test is not whether accommodation exists. It is whether it is simple, visible, and available before a problem becomes a crisis. This Is About More Than Mail At its core, this debate is not really about mail. It is about independence. It is about whether people can continue to manage their own lives without unnecessary friction. It is about whether public systems are designed for real users rather than ideal ones. The ideal user is mobile, tech-savvy, and well-supported. The real user may be older, living alone, and quietly determined to remain independent. That determination deserves to be supported, not complicated. Modernization, With a Memory Home delivery is not just a legacy feature. For many seniors, it remains a small but meaningful part of how life stays organized and manageable. When that support disappears, the burden does not disappear with it. It shifts to individuals, to families, and to systems that will eventually feel the impact. If the greatest disruption falls on those least able to absorb it, the design needs a second look. And About That Cheque... We may be moving toward a world where fewer things arrive by mail. That is probably inevitable. But before we retire the idea entirely, it is worth remembering why that old line worked in the first place. “The cheque is in the mail” was believable because the system behind it was dependable. It showed up. It connected people. It did its job quietly and consistently.  Modernization should aim for the same thing.  Not nostalgia. Not resistance to change. Just reliability that works for everyone. Because if the day comes when the cheque is no longer in the mail, we should at least be able to say that whatever replaces it works just as well for the people who need it most. Ideally, without requiring ice cleats, a flashlight, and a willingness to sign a waiver. Sue Don’t Retire…ReWire! My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one.  It's available September 8, 2026 - You can now order on the ECW Press site here. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you.

What the Meta/YouTube Verdict Still Misses About Youth Social Media Harm

The verdict against Meta and YouTube has reignited debate over addictive design and youth social media harm. But according to Harshi Sritharan, clinician and digital dependency expert with Offline.now, one key issue is still being overlooked: digital emotional regulation. Sritharan works with young people and families dealing with the real-life fallout of harmful platform design, including compulsive scrolling, sleep disruption, body-image distress, emotional dysregulation, and conflict at home. “The goal isn’t to remove technology from their lives entirely,” says Sritharan. “It’s to help young people and their families build healthier relationships with it.” She can speak to why regulating platform design matters, why digital resilience and online emotional regulation should be treated as core life skills, and why simply restricting access without healthier alternatives can push vulnerable youth into harder-to-monitor spaces. As news coverage focuses on liability and platform accountability, Sritharan offers a frontline clinical perspective on what these harms actually look like inside homes - and what young people, parents, schools, and policymakers may still be missing. ABOUT THE EXPERT Harshi Sritharan is a clinician and digital dependency expert with Offline.now, a digital wellness platform connecting individuals and families with therapists, coaches, and social workers who specialize in healthier relationships with technology.

A year after liftoff: UF scientist reflects on historic space flight and the future of biology beyond Earth

One year after his pioneering flight aboard Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket, University of Florida space biologist Rob Ferl, Ph.D., is still processing what it meant — not just for his career, but for science itself. “What stands out the most is just the overwhelming gratitude,” Ferl said. “It was such an amazing opportunity for a scientist to go to space and actually do science.” Ferl, a professor in UF’s Horticultural Sciences Department, Director of the Astraeus Space Institute, and Assistant Vice President of Research, became one of the first space biologists to fly alongside his own experiment — a moment that marked a new era in researcher-led missions. His suborbital journey provided a rare opportunity to study how terrestrial biology responds to the very first moments of spaceflight. “For decades, space biology has relied on professional astronauts to carry out experiments designed by scientists on Earth,” Ferl explained. “But to truly understand how biology works in space, I believe you - as the scientist - have to be there. You have to feel the environment.” This September, Ferl and longtime collaborator Anna-Lisa Paul, Ph.D., will be back at Blue Origin’s West Texas launch site, continuing their work with a new series of plant experiments. Ferl and Paul, who directs UF’s Interdisciplinary Center for Biotechnology Research and is a professor in Horticultural Sciences, are tracking fluorescently tagged genes in Arabidopsis plants to study how gene expression changes during the rapid shift from Earth’s gravity to the microgravity of spaceflight and back again. It’s a full-circle moment for Ferl, who remains deeply engaged in the same questions that sent him to space a year ago. Unpacking the Transition from Earth to Space Ferl’s experiment focused on the early metabolic responses of plants during the critical transition from Earth’s gravity to the weightlessness of space. “The scientific community has accumulated plenty of data comparing biology in orbit with that on Earth,” he said. “But we’ve known almost nothing about what happens in those first few minutes as organisms enter space and are exposed to microgravity.” Initial results from the flight reveal intense metabolic changes in the early moments of spaceflight. These changes are distinct from, but connected to, the long-term adaptations seen in orbit. Early Findings, Future Impact While the data from Ferl’s experiment are still on the way to being published, the findings are already shaping the direction of ongoing research. The work contributes to a growing understanding of how terrestrial life, from plants to humans, shares fundamental pathways in responding to the space environment. “This has real implications for the future of space missions,” Ferl noted. “As we send more people and more biology into space in support of exploration, we need a comprehensive understanding of how living systems adapt — right from the start.” Ferl and his team will return to Blue Origin’s launch site in Texas in September to continue their research, sending an uncrewed payload of plants into suborbital space. The flight carries no humans—but it does carry an automated experiment designed to advance their understanding of plant biology in space. It’s part of a broader effort to refine what Ferl calls “researcher-tended missions.” A New Course for UF Space Science The mission has not only shaped the trajectory of Ferl’s research, it has also energized Astraeus and the university’s space biology efforts. “This is about building a new kind of science culture,” Ferl said. “One where the scientists are embedded in every part of the mission, from experiment design to the moment of launch.” As the one-year anniversary of his flight approaches, Ferl remains focused on pushing the boundaries of what science in space can be. But he hasn’t forgotten the magnitude of the moment. “Even a year later,” he said, “the most powerful thing I feel is just: thank you. Thank you for the chance to go, to see it for myself, and to bring that knowledge back to Earth.”

With lasers, smoke and a wind tunnel, UF helps federal agency investigate deadly Hurricane Maria

As Floridians brace for hurricanes amid the wild weather of 2025, some University of Florida researchers have their eyes on 2017’s Hurricane Maria, the deadly Category 4 storm that pummeled Puerto Rico. Engineering professor and natural hazards researcher Brian Phillips, Ph.D., is leading UF’s efforts in a Hurricane Maria investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, known as NIST. The goal is increased safety and resilience amid deadly conditions. Maria killed nearly 3,000 people and caused more than $90 billion in damage. Most of the island’s wind sensors and weather stations failed as the storm raged, leaving responders and investigators with few reliable weather measurements. What went wrong? Phillips and UF storm researchers are helping answer that question — and provide safety and structural recommendations — as part of NIST’s Hurricane Maria investigation. The full report will be released in 2026, but NIST recently published preliminary findings; some of the hazard and structural load data was derived from wind tunnel tests at UF's NHERI Experimental Facility in the Powell Family Structure and Materials Laboratory on UF’s East Campus in Gainesville. “Our wind tunnel has a strong reputation in the wind-engineering community for its unique flow control and measurement capabilities We worked with NIST to develop a test campaign to study the wind conditions Puerto Rico’s mountainous terrain and the resulting loads of critical infrastructure,” said Phillips, a civil and coastal engineering professor with UF’s Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment. “UF,” he added, “has one of the premier research wind tunnels in the country and it enables us to pursue impactful research like this.” As part of the NIST investigation, Phillips and his team created 1-to-3100 scale topographic models of regions in Puerto Rico — about 12 kilometers shrunk down to four meters, Phillips said. They set up those models in the wind tunnel and replicated wind flow over the topography. “These initial tests were designed to understand the influence of the complex topography had on the wind,” Phillips said. Flow was measured using velocity probes and particle image velocimetry (PIV). These topographic model tests were followed by 1-to-100 scale tests on models of two hospitals in Puerto Rico. In addition to surface pressure measurements, the team conducted qualitative flow visualization tests using smoke, lasers, and high-speed cameras. “The capabilities of the UF wind tunnel enabled us to investigate the hurricane winds at two different scales,” said NIST’s lead Hurricane Maria investigator, Joseph Main, “so we could measure how the winds were accelerated by Puerto Rico’s mountainous topography and then how those winds translated into loads on critical buildings.” Maria’s flooding blocked roads to hospitals and shelters. The hospitals themselves were heavily damaged by the storm, NIST reported. Reduced access to healthcare was a major factor in the death toll. “It's good to take a step back,” Phillips said about the overall investigation. “Researchers are approaching the disaster from multiple angles, including the better understanding of the hazard, the performance of critical infrastructure, public response and recovery. “This holistic approach is needed to capture the complete picture and maximize what we can learn from the event. UF's primary contribution was understanding the hurricane wind field and the resulting structural loads, which is a critical piece of that puzzle.” In finding infrastructure vulnerabilities, researchers contend the goal is integrating their findings into design standards for Puerto Rico’s unique topography and building codes. The findings also could be valuable to other storm-prone regions with complex topography. NIST launched the investigation in 2018, noting Hurricane Maria “set off a cascade of building and infrastructure failures across Puerto Rico that had lasting impacts on society, including health care, business and education.” “Our goal is to learn from that event to recommend improvements to building codes, standards and practices that will make communities more resilient to hurricanes and other hazards, not just in Puerto Rico but across the United States,” Main said. The complete report is scheduled to be released in 2026, and NIST noted some findings may change before its release. But in July, NIST released some preliminary findings. They include: Peak wind speeds over flat terrain reached 140 mph. They accelerated to over 200 mph in some areas due to the steep hills and mountains. The mountains also intensified the rainfall, which reached 30 inches in some areas. Only three out of 22 weather stations were fully functional during the hurricane. 95.3% of schools on the island lost power for an average of over 100 days. “One important preliminary finding from the study is that emergency preparations work,” NIST reported. “Businesses, schools and hospitals that took specific measures to prepare before Hurricane Maria were able to resume operations more quickly” said Maria Dillard, NIST’s associate lead Hurricane Maria investigator. Preparations included pre-established emergency plans, designated risk mitigation funds and backup power sources.

Expert Q&A: What is Soft Diplomacy and how does it impact classrooms?

"Right now, storytelling is critical. Language learning is highly personal, and it’s the person-to-person relationships that grease the wheels," says Cheryl Ernst, director of the English Language Institute at the University of Delaware. She recently published English Language Programs as Facilitators of Soft Diplomacy in Innovations in Star Scholars Press. Here's how she's discussing this important topic.  Q: What is the focus of this research, and why is it important? Ernst: ELI and other English language programs provide the ideal space for communication development, cross cultural appreciation, gaining life skills, and raising awareness about people beyond the media. Post pandemic, we’re hearing across campus how individuals feel less connected, and in English language classrooms, connection is critical. Language is only learned through production and practice since it’s a skill that needs to be honed. In language, there is no such thing as perfect. In our classrooms, English is the common goal, and everyone comes to that space at their own levels and overflowing with imperfection. Our students learn to use their vulnerability as a tool. They learn the value of a growth mindset living in a culture that is different from their own, and with that comes an appreciation for difference, respect for others, trust, human-to-human communication. Q: What inspired this research? Ernst: More than 30 years of observation, conversations, experiences, and personal relationships. There was no term to describe the skills English language programs teach beyond grammar (what’s perceived, anyway). Terms like personal diplomacy, person-to-person diplomacy, civic diplomacy, and the like happens all the time and oversimplifies what we do. In my readings, I started to see overlaps between soft power and diplomacy, which led to the concept of Soft Diplomacy. Then what distinguishes Soft Diplomacy from other more common monikers are the variety of skills that happen organically in our classrooms that we rarely acknowledge and students may not recognize. Q: What are some key findings or developments? Ernst: Institutionally, ELPs can do better highlighting the skills beyond English that we teach organically or deliberately. Q: How could this work potentially impact the field or the wider public? Ernst: Respecting ELPs for the space they provide and the skills they offer. It’s not “just English,” rather is learning to communicate in a common language and with people from around the globe. I’d like people to realize that relationships are foundational, that there are common values across nations and that differences are not bad. What version of English is “correct” British or American dialects (the New York? Wisconsin? Alabama? Iowa?). Q: What are the next steps or upcoming milestones in your research? Ernst: A former student and I have launched a podcast series called Soft Diplomacy in Action that focuses on personal stories from those who work in international education. We’ve interviewed an ELI associate professor from Morocco, the UD coordinator of the Mandela Fellows program, a professor who sees (and lives) the diplomatic value of sports, and a retired English language professional. We’re looking forward to continuing these conversations with individuals from a variety of disciplines that also work in this space but through different lenses. ABOUT CHERYL ERNST Cheryl Ernst is the director of the English Language Institute at the University of Delaware where she and her colleagues and students practice Soft Diplomacy every day. Her professional areas of interest include program administration and international marketing, teacher training and working with international teaching assistants, curriculum design, and advanced level academic English (graduate levels). To speak with Ernst her work and the importance of Soft Diplomacy, reach out to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

AI in the classroom: What parents need to know

As students return to classrooms, Maya Israel, professor of educational technology and computer science education at the University of Florida, shares insights on best practices for AI use for students in K-12. She also serves as the director of CSEveryone Center for Computer Science Education at UF, a program created to boost teachers’ capabilities around computer science and AI in education. Israel also leads the Florida K-12 Education Task Force, a group committed to empowering educators, students, families and administrators by harnessing the transformative potential of AI in K-12 classrooms, prioritizing safety, privacy, access and fairness. How are K–12 students using AI in classrooms? There is a wide range of approaches that students are using AI in classrooms. It depends on several factors including district policies, student age and the teacher’s instructional goals. Some districts restrict AI to only teacher use, such as creating custom reading passages for younger students. Others allow older students to use tools to check grammar, create visuals or run science simulations. Even then, skilled teachers frame AI as one tool, not a replacement for student thinking and effort. What are examples of age-appropriate tools that enhance learning? AI tools can be used to either enhance or erode learner agency and critical thinking. It is up to the educators to consider how these tools can be used appropriately. It is critical to use AI tools in a manner that supports learning, creativity and problem solving rather than bypass critical thinking. For example, Canva lets students create infographics, posters and videos to show understanding. Google’s Teachable Machine helps students learn AI concepts by training their own image-recognition models. These types of AI-augmented tools work best when they are embedded into activities such as project-based learning, where AI supports learning and critical thinking. How do teachers ensure AI supports core skills? While AI can be incredibly helpful in supporting learning, it should not be a shortcut that allows students to bypass learning. Teachers should design learning opportunities that integrate AI in a manner that encourages critical thinking. For example, if students are using AI to support their mathematical understanding, teachers should ask them to explain their reasoning, engage in discussions and attempt to solve problems in different ways. Teachers can ask students questions like, “Does that answer make sense based on what you know?” or “Why do you think [said AI tool] made that suggestion?” This type of reflection reinforces the message that learning does not happen through getting fast answers. Learning happens through exploration, productive struggle and collaboration. Many parents worry that using AI might make students too dependent on technology. How do educators address that concern? This is a very valid concern. Over-reliance on AI can erode independence and critical thinking, that’s why teachers should be intentional in how they use AI for teaching and learning. Educators can address this concern by communicating with parents their policies and approaches to using AI with students. This approach can include providing clear expectations of when AI is used, designing assignments that require critical thinking, personal reflection and reasoning and teaching students the metacognitive skills to self-assess how and when to use AI so that it is used to support learning rather than as a crutch. How do schools ensure that students still develop original thinking and creativity when using AI for assignments or projects? In the age of AI, there is the need to be even more intentional designing learning experiences where students engage in creative and critical thinking. One of the best practices that have shown to support this is the use of project-based learning, where students must create, iterate and evaluate ideas based on feedback from their peers and teachers. AI can help students gather ideas or organize research, but the students must ask the questions, synthesize information and produce original ideas. Assessment and rubrics should emphasize skills such as reasoning, process and creativity rather than just focusing on the final product. That way, although AI can play a role in instruction, the goal is to design instructional activities that move beyond what the AI can do. How do educators help students understand when it’s appropriate to use AI in their schoolwork? In the age of AI, educators should help students develop the skills to be original thinkers who can use AI thoughtfully and responsibly. Educators can help students understand when to use AI in their school work by directly embedding AI literacy into their instruction. AI literacy includes having discussions about the capabilities and limitations of AI, ethical considerations and the importance of students’ agency and original thoughts. Additionally, clear guidelines and policies help students navigate some of the gray areas of AI usage. What guidance should parents give at home? There are several key messages that parents should give their children about the use of AI. The most important message is that even though AI is powerful, it does not replace their judgement, creativity or empathy. Even though AI can provide fast answers, it is important for students to learn the skills themselves. Another key message is to know the rules about AI in the classroom. Parents should speak with their students about the mental health implications of over-reliance on AI. When students turn to AI-augmented tools for every answer or idea, they can gradually lose confidence in their own problem-solving abilities. Instead, students should learn how to use AI in ways that strengthen their skills and build independence.

What the World Needs Now: How Art, Culture, and Nature Can Help Heal Communities in Difficult Times

In an era marked by political division, cultural fatigue, and rapid technological change, communities are increasingly searching for places that offer connection, restoration, and shared experience. Charles Burke, President & CEO of Frederik Meijer Gardens & Sculpture Park, brings a leadership perspective shaped by decades across the arts, civic engagement, and nonprofit strategy — focused on how cultural institutions can serve as stabilizing forces in uncertain times. Through the lens of Meijer Gardens, Burke examines how art, culture, and nature can work together to restore, unite, and inspire communities, offering spaces where people can slow down, reconnect, and engage with one another beyond polarization or distraction. Charles Burke is President & CEO of Frederik Meijer Gardens & Sculpture Park. Under his direction, the organization has been recognized as Best Sculpture Park in the United States by USA Today’s 10Best Readers’ Choice Awards in 2023, 2024, and 2025, and consecutively named one of the Best Places to Work in West Michigan, solidifying its reputation as a cultural landmark of international acclaim. View his profile Why This Matters Now In an era marked by political division, cultural fatigue, and rapid technological change, communities are increasingly searching for places that offer connection, restoration, and shared experience. Charles Burke, President & CEO of Frederik Meijer Gardens & Sculpture Park, brings a leadership perspective shaped by decades across the arts, civic engagement, and nonprofit strategy — focused on how cultural institutions can serve as stabilizing forces in uncertain times. Through the lens of Meijer Gardens, Burke examines how art, culture, and nature can work together to restore, unite, and inspire communities, offering spaces where people can slow down, reconnect, and engage with one another beyond polarization or distraction. An Expert Perspective on Healing Through Experience From Burke’s leadership vantage point, institutions like Meijer Gardens demonstrate how intentional design and programming can support community well-being. Examples include: Environments that encourage mental restoration, such as forested landscapes and immersive outdoor spaces Experiences that invite reflection and emotional engagement, rather than passive consumption Programming that brings together diverse audiences around shared encounters with beauty and creativity These experiences do not attempt to solve complex societal challenges directly. Instead, they create conditions for connection, empathy, and resilience, key foundations that healthy communities depend on. Civic Spaces as “Experiential Engines” A central concept in Burke’s work is the idea of cultural institutions as experiential engines — places designed not just to display art or plants, but to generate meaning, joy, and shared memory. When thoughtfully integrated, sculpture, horticulture, architecture, and programming can transform public spaces into environments that foster belonging and inclusion. This approach positions cultural institutions as active participants in civic life, contributing to community health and cohesion rather than operating at the margins of public discourse. Technology, Humanity, and the Future of Cultural Spaces As technology continues to shape how people interact with the world, Burke’s perspective emphasizes balance. Emerging tools — including artificial intelligence — can enhance accessibility, storytelling, and personalization when used intentionally. The challenge, and opportunity, lies in ensuring that technology deepens human connection rather than distracting from it. And while AI is ideal for aggregating information and should be integrated into , it isn't inherently creative. Burke believes that cultural institutions can uniquely unlock the power of human potential in creativity. And cultural institutions that integrate innovation thoughtfully can remain relevant while staying grounded in human experience. Meijer Gardens as a Living Model Over three decades, Meijer Gardens has evolved into a nationally recognized destination where beauty, experience, and mission align. Its integration of art, nature, education, and seasonal programming offers a real-world example of how cultural institutions can grow while remaining inclusive, restorative, and community-centered. Why Journalists and Conference Organizers Should Connect Charles Burke brings informed perspective on: The role of art and nature in public healing and mental wellness Cultural responsibility during periods of division and uncertainty Designing inclusive, joyful, and interactive civic spaces Balancing technology and humanity in cultural institutions How Meijer Gardens functions as a model for innovative integration and creativity Audience fit: museum and cultural leadership forums, civic innovation conferences, mental health and wellness discussions, placemaking initiatives, higher education leadership forums, philanthropic leadership events, sustainability and design summits.

Solving for X: Expert highlights importance of algebra in middle and high school

Math educators agree that Algebra is a critical course for middle and high schoolers, often serving as a gateway to more advanced math courses and influencing students’ academic trajectories in STEM pathways. Yet, many students struggle in this important course. Since May 2025, University of Delaware Associate Professor Erica Litke has partnered with the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education and the School District of Philadelphia in a $5 million, three-year initiative to improve algebra teaching in the district. The project offers algebra teachers professional development through a year-long fellowship. With expertise in improving instructional quality in math and supporting algebra teaching, Litke leads the design and delivery of the professional development with Penn GSE experts. Close to 80 teachers participated in the first cohort of the fellowship, which includes a four-day summer institute. Litke’s research in math education has connected instructional quality to broader policy issues in education and focused on teacher knowledge and professional development. “The focus on algebra content and key features of algebra teaching that support students in learning algebra content helps teachers translate their learning from the fellowship directly into their teaching practice,” said Litke. “Being able to translate my research findings into usable knowledge for teachers and contribute to the design of this kind of comprehensive professional learning has been really exciting.” Litke can speak to her role in the Algebra Fellowship project, the importance of Algebra 1 in the trajectory of students’ STEM education and strategies for supporting teaching learning at the school and district levels. ABOUT ERICA LITKE Erica Litke is an associate professor specializing in mathematics education in the School of Education at the University of Delaware. Her research focuses on understanding and improving instructional quality in mathematics for students in the elementary and secondary grades. Her research has described and analyzed instructional practice in mathematics using observation instruments, connected instructional quality in mathematics to broader policy-related issues in education, and focused on teacher knowledge and professional development. She has appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily Pennsylvanian and other publications. To speak with Litke or to learn more, email mediarelations@udel.edu.