Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Expert Q& A: ‘The Pope is also a monarch’
Kathleen Comerford, Ph.D., professor of history at Georgia Southern University, specializes in Catholic history in the 16th and 17th centuries. She is also an associate editor for the Journal of Jesuit Studies, which focuses on the work of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), a religious order within the Catholic Church. Pope Francis was the church’s first Jesuit pope. With the global significance and rarity of the conclave, Comerford answered frequently asked questions about how the conclave works, how the conclave process has evolved over time, and what the passing of a pope means for the Catholic Church and the world. Question: What does the passing of a pope mean for the world? Comerford: Multiple things! First of all, there are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world scattered in many different countries. The pope is a unifying figure for all of the Catholics. He represents something immediate in the sense that he’s the head of the church and is a recognizable figure. The pope is also a monarch. I was just talking with my classes about this. He is the head of the government of the Vatican City State, which is the smallest independent state in the world. It has a very long history itself. Pretty much everybody who lives in Vatican City works for the Vatican. The pope is one of the few elected monarchs in history. He is responsible for financial and political decisions, and he has ambassadors around the world as a result of his role in global policy. Question: How is a new pope selected? Comerford: The College of Cardinals will meet for an election called a conclave, and they actually stay in a dormitory-like place in Vatican City for it. They are sequestered from the public, and they take some time to meet, pray and vote. The cardinals aren’t supposed to be sitting around talking about who would be a really good pope, but we don’t know whether they do because they’re sequestered and nobody is supposed to talk about it. They will likely take a vote on the first day, but that’s not required. Every subsequent day, they can take a maximum of four votes; two in the morning and two in the afternoon until a candidate gets a two-thirds majority. Question: What does the voting look like? Comerford: There are ballots, and the cardinals write their preferred candidate on the ballot, and then they put their vote in a chalice. To count the votes, there’s a group of three people who are in charge of counting and then announcing the results to the fellow cardinals. There are 252 cardinals, but only 135 of them are eligible to vote because anyone over the age of 80 is ineligible. The procedure where only cardinals can elect the pope dates from 1059. The secret ballot and the two-thirds majority requirement is from 1621. The sequestration for the process dates from 1271 because they argued about who the new pope would be for two years and nine months; a total of 33 months. And so, they decided that the only way to make sure that this didn’t happen again would be to create this scenario with the cardinals locked in a room with a key. Question: When one of the candidates receives a two-thirds majority and becomes the next pope, how will it be announced? Comerford: Well, this is kind of fun, because they have four votes every day until one of the candidates receives a two-thirds majority. After they take the votes, the papers used to vote are burned. How the news is shared to the crowds outside is based on the color of smoke. If the smoke is black, that means no one received the majority and there’s no new pope yet. If there’s white smoke, it means there’s a new pope. This practice really only dates to the early 19th century. At first, it was just if there was smoke, there was no pope; if there was no smoke, then there was a pope. In 1914, they changed this aspect of the election so that black smoke means “no pope” and white smoke means “new pope.” Question: It’s expected that the next pope will be one of the cardinals in the room when they vote, yes? Comerford: Yes, but it doesn’t have to be. There have been a lot of popes, but in the last 200-300 years, there hasn’t been somebody who wasn’t in the conclave that was elected. Theoretically, they could nominate somebody who’s not a cardinal and the whole room could say, “yes, that’s the person we want as pope.” However, they don’t vote by acclamation anymore. They stopped doing that in the 19th century. Question: Pope Francis appointed 108 of the cardinals, so that’s a total of 80% of those eligible to vote for the next pope. How likely is it that we see a pope similar to the late Francis, considering he provided the electorate for his successor? Comerford: First of all, he deliberately went out and created cardinals in places where there had never been cardinals before. And he didn’t do that by saying, “I’m going to find somebody who’s like-minded to me.” He just said, “There are a lot of Catholics in Myanmar and they’ve never had a cardinal. So I’m going to make sure that there’s a cardinal now.” Most of these new cardinals are in places like Rwanda, Cape Verde, Tonga, Myanmar, Mongolia and so on. So these are non-European cardinals. Now, less than 40% of the voting cardinals are European. So to speculate on how similar they are to Francis, you have to break down what Francis was. There has been his entire pontificate about how he’s the first American pope, but his parents were born in Italy. He didn’t grow up speaking Italian, but it was a dialect of Italian as well as Spanish, because he grew up in Argentina. He was the most European you can get and still be an American. Another part of the question is, will the new pope be somebody who is of a similar mind to Francis in terms of his governance, which was very devolved. He introduced this idea of “synodality,” which is about fairly consistent communication with groups of people. Pope Francis was not particularly monarchical or hierarchical. There is also the aspect of his thinking that leans more to the left than the right on a number of social issues like immigration, women’s rights, the rights of minorities and immigration. He opened a lot of conversations, which the very right leaning portions of the church have been very uncomfortable with. If you're interested in learning more about this topic and want to book time to talk or interview with Kathleen Comerford then let us help - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
National Institutes of Health award $1.827 million for research on collective cell migration
Priscilla Hwang, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Virginia Commonwealth University, has received a National Institutes of Health grant for $1.827 million over five years. The award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences will support Hwang’s innovative research project “Dissecting mechanisms of collective migration” and provide mentorship for student researchers from the high school to graduate level. Collective migration, where groups of cells move together in a coordinated manner, is critical for the successful development of tissues and plays a vital role in wound healing, metastasis, and other biological processes. Dysregulation in collective migration is often linked to developmental abnormalities and disease progression. Despite its importance, the mechanics and mechanisms driving collective migration remain poorly understood. The project is organized around three primary goals: Investigate the effect of biomechanical cues to activate leader cells and directional collective migration: Understand how biomechanical signals activate leader cells to guide the migration of cell groups. Elucidate which and how leader cell mechanics are responsible for leader cell development: Identify the specific mechanical properties and behaviors that enable leader cells to emerge and lead the collective migration process. Examine the role of cell junctional forces in collective migration: Explore how the forces at cell contacts contribute to the overall migration and coordination among cells. Hwang will leverage her expertise in 3D microphysiological systems to study collective migration in dynamic, physiologically relevant environments. Her work aims to uncover the mechanisms by which leader cells sense and respond to mechanical forces in their environment, driving the collective migration of cells. “Our understanding of collective migration, especially the mechanics and mechanisms driving this phenomenon, is very limited,” Hwang said. “Our proposal will significantly accelerate our progress toward a comprehensive understanding of collective migration and lay the foundation for advancing treatment for developmental abnormalities or diseases.” The NIH grant will also expand student research and mentoring opportunities. “This Maximizing Investigators Research Award (MIRA) only goes to the most highly talented and promising investigators, and Dr. Hwang is most deserving,” said Rebecca L. Heise, Ph.D., Inez A. Caudill, Jr. Distinguished Professor and chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering . “The award will provide support for undergraduate and predoctoral research opportunities in this important area of fundamental research that has an impact on neonatal development, cancer, and fibrotic disease.” To ensure diverse perspectives are considered throughout the project, Hwang said students from diverse populations will be recruited, including underrepresented minorities, women, and first-generation college students. “Further, we will continue to share our passion for science with the community through developing hands-on outreach activities based on our research findings,” she added.
#Expert Insight: Political Fandom
The 2024 Presidential campaign has been a roller coaster ride this summer. The upheavals are so fast and unprecedented that the reaction to each event often seems too muted. An assassination attempt and sudden pre-convention withdrawal? In a past generation, these events would be decisive, but in 2024, they seem like just the latest blip in the news cycle. The polls never seem to move more than a couple of points. In such an oddly volatile but also stable environment, our best bet to understanding what is going to transpire during the last 100 days of the election cycle is to look at data that gets to the heart of how voters view the candidates. My choice of fundamental data or essential metric is candidate fandom. Fandom is an unusual metric in politics, but it should be more common. Fandom is about passion for and loyalty to a cultural entity, be it a team, singer, university, or even politician. In fact, MAGA Trump supporters and Bernie Bros share many characteristics with Swifties and Lakers fans. Fans of all these things show up, spend, wear branded apparel, and fiercely defend the object of their fandom. The politicians who inspire fandom, such as AOC, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Marjorie Taylor Green, enjoy many advantages and are the celebrities of the political world. Fandom is critical in politics because fans are loyal, engaged, and resilient. Fans are not casual potential voters who may change preferences and are unlikely to make an effort to stand in line to vote. Fans are the voters who will show up rain or shine and who can’t be swayed. In 2024, a fan will interpret a conviction of their candidate as political “lawfare” rather than evidence of criminality. Also, in 2024, a fan will make excuses for signs of aging that would result in children taking a senior’s car keys. The flip side of fandom, anti-fandom, is also a powerful political force. Indeed, politics may be the cultural context in which anti-fandom has the most impact. Taylor Swift may have haters, but these anti-Swifties are not buying tickets to see Katy Perry in protest. But in politics, hatred of a candidate might be as powerful a tool for generating a vote as fandom. Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was notoriously bad at drawing crowds, suggesting he inspired little passion. In contrast, Trump’s rallies looked like rabid sports crowds complete with matching hats. However, the hatred and fear of Donald Trump inspired sufficient anti-fandom to make Biden competitive. Of course, fandom doesn’t entirely decide elections. In most elections, there isn’t all that much fandom or passion. Beyond the presidency and senatorial contests, most candidates are barely known, and identity factors (race, gender, party affiliation) and candidate awareness are the determining factors. Even in presidential elections, get-out-the-vote efforts (ballot harvesting) and election regulations (voter suppression) combined with effective marketing to the few percent of swing (low information) voters are often the determining factors. Looking toward the future, fandom may be an increasingly salient political metric for multiple reasons. First, the last two decades have witnessed many candidates raised quickly from obscurity with somehow Hollywood-worthy origin stories (Barack Obama, AOC, JD Vance, etc.). In the modern media environment, candidates’ reputations (brands) are increasingly the product of marketing narratives rather than a lifetime of real-world accomplishments. In this new world of politics, fandom will be a critical metric. Second, with the increasing diversity of the American electorate, voting will be increasingly based on identity rather than ideology. Identity-based voting segments are likely to be driven by fandom (and anti-fandom) rather than policy. We see a form of this in 2024, as high inflation has barely made a dent in voters’ preferences for the two parties. A fragmented electorate comprised of racial and gender segments whose preferences are driven by fandom and anti-fandom will lead to increasingly negative campaigns featuring ads highlighting the threat of the non-preferred party’s candidates. When voters are focused on identity, negative advertising becomes the ideal method to use fear to create anti-fandom (hate) to motivate turnout. Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump Barring further disruptions, the matchup is set for the 2024 presidential contest (as of this writing, we do not know the Democratic VP). We do know the matchup between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is a contest between polarizing figures. Donald Trump is a movement candidate who has redefined the Republican party. He inspires passionate fandom from his followers and amazing antipathy from major media and cultural outlets. Harris is also polarizing. In the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal, Harris received massive media and donor support. However, Harris has not demonstrated any significant national voter appeal, and her time as VP has generated ample blooper real material. My approach to assessing the race is to examine each candidate's fandom and anti-fandom. Fandom is the candidate’s core, resilient support, while anti-fandom is about antipathy. Fandom and anti-fandom are especially powerful metrics for a candidate because they are relatively fixed after a candidate gains high awareness. Once an individual identifies with the candidate (e.g., they are on the same team), an attack on the candidate is an attack on the individual. This means attack ads do not work because fans feel they are being attacked. Anti-fans are also important because they constrain a candidate’s support. A Trump anti-fan is unpersuadable by efforts from the Trump campaign because their identity is steeped in opposition to him. Fans and anti-fans are trapped in a cycle of confirmation bias where all information is processed to fit their fandom. I use data from the Next Generation Fandom Survey to assess candidate fandom and anti-fandom. The Next Generation Fandom Survey involves a nationwide sample of the U.S. population regarding fandom for sports and other cultural entities. In the 2024 edition, political figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and RFK Jr were included. The survey captured responses from 2053 subjects split evenly across the four primary generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers), and the sample is representative in terms of racial background. The survey does not focus on likely or registered voters, so the results reflect overall societal sentiments rather than the electorate's opinions. The critical survey question asks subjects to rate how much of a fan they are of a celebrity on a 1 to 7 scale. In the following discussion, individuals who rated their fandom a 6 or 7 on the 7-point scale are categorized as Fans, while those who rate their fandom a 1 or 2 are classified as Anti-Fans. Table 1 shows the Fandom and Anti-Fandom rates for the entire sample. Donald Trump has a 27% fandom rate compared to Harris's 21%. The fandom rate is crucial because it identifies the candidate's core support. It also indicates something important about the candidate’s potential likability. In terms of anti-fandom, Harris has a slightly higher Anti-Fandom rate. Anti-Fandom is also critical as it shows the percentage of people who hate a candidate. The data suggests that Americans find Harris to be more dislikable than Trump. Notably, the anti-fandom rates are significantly higher than the fandom rates. The American public has significant disdain for politicians. The high anti-fandom rates are both the product of past negative advertising and the cause of future negative campaign strategies. Table 1: Candidate Fandom and Anti-Fandom Table 2 reports fandom rates based of the two gender segments. Trump has a 7%-point advantage with men and a surprising 4% advantage with women. This is a stunning result as Trump is generally regarded as having weakness with female voters. However, this weakness shows up in the anti-fandom rates. In the male segment, Trump has a 5%-point advantage in anti-fandom (fewer anti-fans), but a 3% disadvantage in the female segment. This reveals that Trump is polarizing to women, and almost half of women find Trump to be highly dislikable. This finding is why the Harris campaign is likely to use advertising that casts Trump as misogynistic or a threat to women to motivate turnout by female voters. Table 2: Candidate Fandom by Gender Table 3 shows the fandom rates for the two younger demographic segments: Gen Z and Millennials. This Table also shows Trump’s relative performance versus Biden (in parentheses in the last column). Trump enjoys higher fandom and lower anti-fandom than Harris in both the Gen Z and Millennial segments. In terms of fandom, Trump is plus 6% in Gen Z and plus 11% with Millennials. Critically, Harris outperforms Biden. The Gen Z anti-fandom gap between Trump and Biden favored Trump by 6% points. However, this gap shrinks to just 1% point when Harris is the comparison. The data suggests that Harris is stronger with Gen Z than Biden. Table 3: Candidate Fandom in Younger Generations Table 4 reports the fandom rates based on a racial segmentation scheme. Specifically, the sample is divided into White and Non-White categories. This is a crude segmentation, but it illustrates some essential points. Trump enjoys a significant 14% positive fandom advantage in the White demographic. He also enjoys a 10-point edge in (lower) anti-fandom. The pattern essentially reverses in the Non-White segment, as Harris has a 10-point advantage in fandom and a 17-point edge in anti-fandom. Trump’s anti-fandom in the Non-White segment is critical to the campaign. Nearly half of this segment has antipathy or hate for Trump. This high anti-fandom suggests an opportunity for the Harris campaign to emphasize racial angles in their attacks on Trump. Table 4: Candidate Fandom by Race In addition to fandom and anti-fandom rates across demographic categories, insights can be gleaned by looking at segmentation variables that reflect cultural values or personality. Table 5 shows fandom and anti-fandom rates for Trump and Harris for segments defined by fandom for Taylor Swift (Swifties) and Baseball. The Swifties skew towards Harris. The implication is that young women engaged in popular culture have more positive fandom for Harris and more negativity toward Trump. This is unsurprising given the content of the popular culture and Swift’s personal liberalism. The Swiftie segment shows a much stronger skew for Harris than all but the Non-White segment. Examining the data at a cultural level is vital as it indicates that it isn’t necessarily youth or gender where Harris has an advantage but a combination of youth, gender, and a specific type of cultural engagement. The table also includes fandom rates for baseball fans. In the Baseball Fan segment, Trump enjoys an 8% point fandom advantage and a 7% anti-fandom advantage (lower anti-fandom). Like the case of the Swifties, the fandom rates of Baseball Fans reveal something about Trump’s core support. Baseball is a very traditional game with an older fan base, and traditionalism is probably the core value of Trump fans. Trump’s negative advertising is likely to focus on the threats to traditional values (i.e., Harris is a San Francisco liberal). Table 5: Candidate Fandom and Cultural Segments Commentary and Prediction Fandom is a powerful metric for predicting political success, but like most data points, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Fandom is a measure of unwavering core support while anti-fandom measures the group that will never support and is likely to show up to vote against a candidate. Examining fandom rates across multiple segments reveals that Harris’ core support is concentrated in specific cultural and racial segments. The analysis also suggests that Trump's core support is broader than is usually acknowledged and that his main problem is significant anti-fandom with women and minorities. Harris’ problem is a lack of love, while Trump’s is too much hate. Notably, I am not paying too much attention to the current wave of excitement and enthusiasm surrounding Harris. The recent enthusiasm is likely more a manifestation of the Democratic base’s hopes and a relentless media onslaught than an actual increase in passion for Harris. Maybe there will be a permanent shift upward in Harris’s fandom, but I don’t see any logic for why this would occur. Harris isn’t suddenly more likable or aspirational than she was last month. The argument that the American people are becoming more acquainted with her is dubious, given that she has been the Vice President or a major presidential candidate for almost five years. What are the implications for the upcoming election? Voting is not only about fandom or hate, so we must consider some additional factors. For instance, many potential voters lack passion and knowledge and are more prone to vote based on identity rather than ideology. If a region or demographic segment consistently votes for a party 75% of the time, that’s voting more based on fixed identities than current societal conditions. The American electorate has many of these types of fixed-preference voter segments. Furthermore, as the American electorate becomes more diverse, identity-based voting seems to be making presidential contests more predictable. The baseline seems to be that the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by a few percentage points, and the Electoral College will come down to a few states, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Examining past electoral maps shows far more shifting of states across elections. Now, all but a handful of states are regarded as non-competitive. The Figure below shows the presidential popular vote margins for the last 50 years. It shows a trend towards smaller margins for the winning candidate, which is at least partly due to growing ethnic diversity and more fixed (at least in the near and medium terms) identity-based voting. Over the last 13 cycles, the margin of victory has dropped by about 1% every four years. Demographic change has also locked in a high baseline level of support for Democratic candidates. The last time a Republican won the popular vote was in 2004, with George Bush as the incumbent. Figure 1: Presidential Vote Margin 1972 to 2020 In addition to shrinking election margins, demographic change promises to change future campaign tones. The increasing relevance of fandom and anti-fandom, combined with the growing diversity of the electorate, will make 2024 an extremely negative campaign. The 2024 election will be determined by identity-based demographic trends and negative (anti-fandom) marketing campaigns. Demographics are destiny, and America is changing rapidly in ways that make it increasingly difficult for the Republicans to win the popular vote. It doesn’t matter if the Democrat is Harris, Newsom, Clinton, or Whitmer while the Republican is Rubio, Haley, Cruz, or Burgum. The baseline is probably 52% to 48%, D to R. Candidate fandom and anti-fandom probably shift the vote 2 or 3 percent in either direction. The correlation of demographic traits with voting behaviors creates incentives for campaign strategies that focus on identity. Republicans are eager to shift some percentage of Black or Hispanic voters to their cause because it simultaneously reduces the Democrats' base and grows Republican totals. In contrast, Democrats need to motivate marginal voters in the female, Black, and Hispanic segments to turn out. Fear-based appeals are the most effective tool for both parties' goals. Negative messaging is also prevalent because of the general view of politicians. Politicians tend to inspire more antipathy (anti-fandom) than admiration (fandom). The fandom data shows this, as both candidates have far more anti-fans than fans (this holds with other politicians) . The modern election calculus is, therefore, focused on aggressive negative ads that inspire marginal voters to take the initiative to vote against a hated candidate. Passion drives behavior, and it's far easier to drive fear and hatred of a candidate than to inspire passion and admiration. Considering the fandom data and the current electorate, I have two predictions. First, we will witness an incredibly nasty race. Harris’s best bet is to demonize Trump to motivate the anti-Trump voters to turn out. The American culture of 2024 includes constant repetition that many Democratic voting constituencies are marginalized and threatened. These segments are best motivated by using messages that cast the Republicans as the danger or oppressor. Women will fear losing reproductive rights, and African Americans will be primed with threats to voting rights. Trump will also employ negative messaging, but Trump’s adoption of a negative campaign comes from a slightly different motivation. Trump’s core support consists of conservatives who are frustrated by a lack of cultural power and representation. This group is looking for someone who will fight for their values. This desire for a “fighting advocate” explains much of Trump’s appeal, as his supporters are enthusiastic about his “mean tweets and nicknames.” There will also be fear-based advertising as Harris will be positioned as wanting to defund police and open the border. Second, Trump wins in a close contest. Comparing Trump’s and Harris’ fandom and anti-fandom suggests the Harris campaign faces an uphill challenge. Despite the current blitz of enthusiasm for Harris as a replacement for a failing Joe Biden, her “brand” has not shown an ability to stimulate passion, and her dislike levels exceed Trump's. It seems unlikely that she will be able to inspire fans. While Trump has a significant fanbase and weaknesses in terms of strong anti-fandom levels in minority and cultural segments, he probably beat Clinton in 2016 because her anti-fandom was equivalent to his. In contrast, he lost to Biden because Biden had less anti-fandom (in 2020). Kamala Harris seems more like Clinton than Biden, so look for a similar outcome as in 2016. The bottom-line prediction: An exceptionally negative campaign, with Trump’s greater baseline fandom and Harris’s charisma deficit leading to a narrow Trump victory. As in 2016,Trump wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. Addendum: Future Fandom Lesson The structure of the American electorate and the propensity of people to vote based on identity rather than ideology mean that negative campaigns are the standard in the near future. The essential observation is that demographic trends create an electorate that is more a collection of identity segments than a homogeneous population that varies in ideology. An increasingly diverse electorate likely means increasingly negative presidential campaigns as negative or fear-based appeals are especially effective when elections focus on threats to identity groups. The tragedy of this situation is that the negative messages of campaigns amplify racial division and acrimony. When the next election occurs, the electorate is even more polarized, and negative or fear-based appeals are again the most effective. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.
Freedom House 'Nations in Transit 2024' Report | Media Advisory
The annual release of the Freedom House 'Nations in Transit' report serves as a critical barometer for assessing the state of democracy, human rights, and governance across the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia. As governments and societies navigate various political, economic, and social challenges, this report provides invaluable insights into the progress and setbacks in the region's democratic development. The report's findings are pertinent to the public because they shed light on the status of fundamental freedoms, rule of law, and democratic institutions, influencing regional and global policies. Key angles for coverage could include: Democratic Erosion and Backsliding: Analysis of countries experiencing democratic decline and the factors driving it. Civil Society and Activism: Profiles of grassroots movements and civil society organizations advocating for change. Media Freedom and Disinformation: Examination of threats to press freedom and challenges posed by disinformation campaigns. Corruption and Governance: Investigations into corruption scandals and efforts to enhance transparency and accountability. Human Rights and Minorities: Coverage of human rights abuses and discrimination against marginalized communities. Geopolitical Dynamics: Discussions on the geopolitical implications of democratic trends in the region and their impact on international relations. The 'Nations in Transit 2024' report is not just a documentation of regional developments; it's a reflection of the ongoing struggle for democracy and human rights, making it a crucial resource for journalists and policymakers alike. Connect with an Expert about the 'Nations in Transit 2024' For journalists with questions or looking to cover the Freedom House 'Nations in Transit' report, here is a select list of experts. To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Muqtedar Khan Professor, Political Science and International Relations · University of Delaware Jane Landers Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Professor of History · Vanderbilt University Christopher Fettweis Associate Professor · Tulane University Lowell Gustafson, PhD Professor of Political Science | College of Liberal Arts and Sciences · Villanova University Heangjin Park Assistant Professor of Asian and Asian American Studies · Loyola Marymount University Photo Credit: Yannhis H
Study reveals how stereotypes undermine diversity efforts in the workplace
Although they were released well before the "Barbie" movie crushed it at the box office, recent findings by a group of University of Delaware researchers could have been used as fodder for a scene in the film. Kyle Emich, a professor of management at the Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics, along with former UD colleagues Rachel Amey and Chad Forbes, wanted to know why women’s knowledge often gets ignored in the workplace, and how to improve that situation. Drawing on both a problem-solving group exercise and measurements of brain activity, their findings, published by the journal Small Group Research, illustrate ways stereotypes and attitudes can stifle the benefits of diversity efforts. At the same time, the study also offers hope for solutions. Key takeaways: While women are often urged to fight for status, the onus should actually be placed on high-status men to respect and accept women’s expertise. - Teams in the group exercise made up of two men and one woman were less effective. Women often struggled to speak up when they were in the minority. Also, the more minority women on these teams shared key information, the less respect they got from their team. The findings, Emich and his team said, confirm the idea that a lack of respect for minorities undermines the benefit of diversity. They also argue that while the burden is often put on women to make sure they have a voice, men in power should also bear this responsibility. Emich, who studies group dynamics and performance in work settings and examines how emotions influence cognitive processing, is available for interviews. Click on his profile below to set one up.
Artificial intelligence has been hogging headlines around the world in recent months. In late March 2023, an unprecedented coalition of tech CEOs signed an open letter calling for a moratorium on AI training. The race to empower powerful artificial minds should be paused, argued signatories (including Elon Musk) to give humanity time to review and reassess the potential risks of developing “human-competitive intelligence”–intelligence that “no one–not even their creators–can understand, predict, or reliably control.” Concerns about the unchecked rise of AI are not new, and global media is increasingly sounding the alarm, citing concerns that range from invasion of privacy to an existential threat to human existence. Weighing in on this with compelling new evidence around the “unintended consequences” of AI is research by Goizueta’s Ramnath Chellappa and Information Systems PhD candidate, Jonathan Gomez Martinez. Uncovering the Threat Their paper, Content Moderation and AI: Impact on Minority Communities, takes a hard look at how the use of AI in social media could disadvantage LGBTQ+ users. And what they find is worrying. Chellappa, who is Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management, explains that he and Gomez Martinez homed in on Twitter to explore how unchecked artificial language moderation might (mistakenly) censor the use of “otherwise toxic” language by failing to understand the context or nuanced use of the LGBTQ+ lexicon. Examples of this include “reclaimed language”—verbiage that would be a slur in other contexts—but is reclaimed and prosocial if used by the originally targeted community. Their paper, Content Moderation and AI: Impact on Minority Communities, takes a hard look at how the use of AI in social media could disadvantage LGBTQ+ users. And what they find is worrying. Chellappa, who is Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management, explains that he and Gomez Martinez homed in on Twitter to explore how unchecked artificial language moderation might (mistakenly) censor the use of “otherwise toxic” language by failing to understand the context or nuanced use of the LGBTQ+ lexicon. Examples of this include “reclaimed language”—verbiage that would be a slur in other contexts—but is reclaimed and prosocial if used by the originally targeted community. “This is a community that has ‘reclaimed’ certain words and expressions that might be considered offensive in other contexts. Terms like ‘queer’ are used within the community both in jest and as a marker of identity and belonging. But if used by those outside the community, this kind of language could be deemed inflammatory or offensive.” Gomez Martinez adds: “We wanted to measure the extent to which AI’s lack of a nuanced understanding of what is ‘acceptable’ affects minority users’ online interactions. As humans, we understand that marginalized communities have long used ‘reclaimed words’ both in jest and as a kind of rallying cry. Our intuition was that the machine simply wouldn’t understand this without context—context that is more immediately apparent to people.” Determining the Impact of AI-Based Moderation To test this, he and Chellappa looked at data from social media behemoth, Twitter. During the pandemic in 2020, the platform made a significant shift to AI-based content moderation to accommodate stay-at-home measures. Data from Twitter’s proprietary Academic Research API afforded Gomez Martinez and Chellappa access to a complete listing of historical tweets and replies before, during and after this period. Together they analyzed a total of 3.8 million interactions (1.8 million tweets and 2.0 million replies) from a panel of 2,751 users, of which 1,224 self-identified as LGBTQ+ in their Twitter bios. Their study ran over four months, from January to May 2020, before, during and after the switch to machine-based moderation. Using the same tools that Twitter moderators deploy to moderate interactions, Gomez Martinez and Chellappa were able to measure any increase or decrease in pro-social, in-group teasing and toxic language among LGBTQ+ users: terms such as “bitch” or “queer,” which research shows to be a form of ritualized insults—dubbed “reading” by the community—which can appear inappropriate or incoherent to outsiders, says Chellappa. “Analyzing the language, we find a notable reduction in the use of terms that could be considered toxic. When the AI moderation is in effect, you see these users’ language become more vanilla,” he adds. Quantifiably so, in fact. Chellappa and Martinez find a 27 percent reduction in the use of reclaimed language among LGBTQ+ users. And while that doesn’t sound like much, it’s significant for the community, says Gomez Martinez. Using in-language and reading each other is one way for this marginalized group to create a sense of community and social status. Not just that, we know from research that LGBTQ+ people use slurs and insults as a way of preparing themselves emotionally and psychologically for hostile interaction with heterosexual individuals. This kind of teasing and playing helps build resilience, so any reduction in it is significant.” Jonathan Gomez Martinez Good Intentions May Breed Unexpected Consequences So what does this mean for social media, for the LGBTQ+ community or any marginalized group for that matter, that might be prone to automated censorship? And how does any of this play out in the context of broader concerns around AI? For Chellappa and Gomez Martinez, there is a major hazard in granting technology any degree of control over how human beings interact. And it’s rooted in the mismatch between good intentions and unexpected consequences. Their paper, one of the first to dig into the impact of AI on actual business and society, lays bare some of the real-world impact AI has already had on marginalized people. While this study looks at the LGBTQ+ community, it could equally apply to any group that is prone to bias or exclusion—racial minorities or any other underrepresented demographic. “Wherever you have user-generated content, you are likely to find communities with their own, unique way of interacting. We looked at LGBTQ+ Twitter users, but you could also look at the African American community, for instance.” Ramnath K. Chellapa At a time when social media platforms have become almost newslike in their influence, this is a concern. On the one hand, censoring certain demographics might earn Twitter et al an unwanted reputation for being anti-LGBTQ+ or racist, he adds. But there are even bigger stakes here than bad publicity. “Twitter has long aspired to be a kind of global town square,” says Gomez Martinez. “But you end up pretty far from that scenario if only some voices are truly heard, or if you start reinforcing biases because you are using a time-saving technology that is not equipped yet to understand the complexity and nuance of human interaction.” AI isn’t there yet, say Chellappa and Gomez Martinez. And they caution against using AI indiscriminately to expedite or streamline processes that impact human communication and interchange. If we don’t keep track of it, their research shows that AI has the potential to start dictating and moving people into normative behavior—effectively homogenizing us. And that’s a problem. Looking to know more? Ramnath Chellappa is available to speak with media. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
UF researcher proves underrepresented groups experience more workplace bias
By Halle Burton George Cunningham, a UF professor and researcher, conducted a study on workplace bias, finding managers are more likely to display an implicit bias towards minorities and underrepresented groups. Cunningham is chair of the UF Department of Sport Management, and his study was published in Frontiers in Psychology in November 2022. Working with his co-author, Cunningham analyzed self-identified managers and people in 22 other occupational designations to compare their implicit and explicit biases towards race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. “Once we saw that race, gender, disability and sexual orientation-based forms of mistreatment are all prevalent in the U.S. workforce, we determined this warranted examination of managers’ biases in these areas,” Cunningham said. The researchers found that managers held a moderate preference for majority groups. Additionally, the study shows these managers also expressed more bias than jobs working to better societal standards and environmental issues like educators and social scientists. Cunningham’s original question asked if managers convey biases that vary from other occupational codes and if this impacts the claims employees make. Not only did his study answer this with a resounding yes, but it further divides the focus of the bias on sectors of implicit and explicit attitudes. Cunningham said their study also showed a disconnect between managers’ explicit and implicit biases, especially with disabilities. Their responses indicated they explicitly didn’t believe they held biases against disabilities, but their implicit bias regarding disabled groups was the highest of all. “The more we’re aware of it, the more likely we are to take steps to help lessen the impact,” he said. “The bigger issue, though, is to change the way our society operates.”
ChristianaCare Launches Supplier Diversity Program
Making the organization more reflective of the patients and communities we serve To advance its commitment to diversity and inclusion, ChristianaCare has launched a supplier diversity program – the first among hospitals in Delaware – that supports greater equity among suppliers and provides equal access to purchasing opportunities at the health system. The new program opens the door for small and diverse businesses owned and operated by ethnic minorities, women, veterans, service-disabled veterans, LGBTQ+ individuals and persons with disabilities to do business with ChristianaCare. “ChristianaCare’s commitment to expand and strengthen our partnerships with diverse vendors and suppliers is integral to our strategic plan to embed equity throughout our operations and culture,” said Jennifer Garvin, vice president of Supply Chain at ChristianaCare. “As the largest private employer in Delaware, we want to continue to grow and develop our diverse network of suppliers and vendors and obtain the best products at the best price. “This program gives us a platform to connect with smaller, historically disadvantaged firms. “We often look to the suppliers and business partners in our supply chain to bring new ideas and fresh insights to the table – and we believe everyone should have a seat at that table,” Garvin said. “By formalizing our commitment to supplier diversity, we are making ChristianaCare more reflective of the patients and communities we are privileged to serve.” By emphasizing a culture of diversity throughout their business operations, organizations tend to attract and retain top talent, increase employee satisfaction, outperform competitors and make better business decisions, according to research published by McKinsey & Company on the impact of diversity on businesses. “By being purposeful where we purchase our goods and services, we can make a meaningful, measurable and lasting impact on the wellbeing of our neighbors and our local economy,” said Etmara Offe, senior program manager of Supplier Diversity at ChristianaCare, and the first person to hold a position dedicated to supplier diversity at a health system in Delaware. “We want to ensure that a wide range of diverse suppliers and vendors have opportunities to work with us by growing and developing our network through outreach and educational programs,” she said. Offe said that plans are in the works for a supplier mentoring program and outreach events in the year ahead. For more information, visit ChristianaCare Supplier Diversity – ChristianaCare. Diverse businesses can apply using the Potential Supplier Intake Form on the website.
Faculty from Georgia Southern University’s Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health (JPHCOPH) have secured a federal grant totaling more than $1.8 million from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to promote inclusive excellence in health informatics and health equity. With the goal of empowering minority students through education, JPHCOPH’s Professor and Department Chair Gulzar Shah, Ph.D., as principal investigator, and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Nandi Marshall, DrPH, as co-investigator, received the grant as part of the $7.98 million award for the TRIUMPH (Training in Informatics for Underrepresented Minorities in Public Health) consortium, which included three other universities and four public health organizations. “This initiative will help our college foster collaborations and community engagement involving influential public health agencies, academic institutions, community organizations and public health agencies,” stated Shah. “It will assist with paid practical experience for students and the practicum sites, and better prospects of job placements for the graduates. The grant will also involve health informatics capacity-building in the current public health workforce in Georgia.” In addition, the grant will help facilitate a new fully online concentration in public health informatics within the University’s existing Master of Public Health (MPH) program. This concentration will feature new courses focused on health information systems, data analytics and public health data visualization for evidenced-based practice. The courses will also be available as elective options for students in the Doctor of Public Health program. As well, the award also provides several graduate assistant opportunities to support students enrolled in the new MPH concentration. If you're a reporter looking to know more about this important topic - then let us help with your coverage and stories. JPHCOPH’s Professor and Department Chair Gulzar Shah, Ph.D, is available to answer your questions - simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
The Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship (CREME) has partnered with NatWest for the Time to Change report It sets out ten evidence-based recommendations for advancing the growth potential of ethnic minority businesses (EMBs) including increasing their GVA contribution from the current £25 billion a year to £100 billion The report is being launched at a special event on 10 May at NatWest Conference Centre in London with keynote speaker Sir Trevor Philips OBE. A new report from Aston University has set out a plan for advancing the growth potential of ethnic minority businesses (EMBs) in the UK. The Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship (CREME) has partnered with NatWest for the Time to Change report which sets out ten evidence-based recommendations to promote greater success and inclusion of ethnic minority businesses (EMBs) in finance and business support in the UK. Experts say the implementation of the recommendations could help tackle the multiple barriers faced by EMBs, particularly in accessing finance, markets and quality business support, and could increase their GVA contribution from the current £25 billion a year to £100 billion, highlighting the significant potential of EMBs to the UK economy. The report says that to combat racial inequality, there should be a UK-wide support for ethnic led businesses should be a standard feature of all future plans. This includes integrating them into broader policy agendas of inclusive growth, productivity and innovation. A more inclusive approach to enterprise is key to tackling wider social structural barriers such as unequal access to employment opportunities and product markets, and gender and ethnicity pay gaps. Concerted action is needed to support the growth ambitions of EMBs, particularly in light of damaging consequences of the pandemic for ethnic minority communities. The report calls for a strong action to eliminate the longstanding challenge of discouragement of ethnic minority entrepreneurs from seeking finance and business support. It found EMBs have been particularly hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic due to the sectors in which they tend to operate and recommends recovery support is focussed on the businesses that need it most. The report also highlights the need for greater accountability of organisations across public, private and third sectors, including business support agencies, finance providers and large purchasing organisations, for their business engagement with EMBs. Professor Monder Ram, director of the Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship at Aston Business School, said: “This major report sets out an ambitious yet practical agenda to realise the potential of UK’s ethnic minority businesses. “The entrepreneurial ambition of ethnic minorities can play a crucial role in the UK Government’s vision of ‘Levelling Up’ prosperity across regions, promoting trade opportunities of ‘Global Britain’ and creating a more cohesive society. “Drawing on the latest research and examples of international best practice, the report presents a comprehensive approach to tackling the barriers faced by firms owned by ethnic minority communities. “We pinpoint key challenges and present recommendations – informed by extensive consultation with business support practitioners and entrepreneurs – that invite policy-makers, corporations and entrepreneurs to collaborate in a new partnership to advance entrepreneurial activities and the UK’s diverse communities.” The report calls for central government and local decision makers to develop clear objectives for inclusive entrepreneurship, informed by evidence, and ensure that EMBs can access quality business support that helps them grow. Dr Eva Kašperová, a research fellow at CREME, said: “To address the barriers faced by EMBs and help them realise their entrepreneurial potential will require commitment and leadership from the government as well as local business support ecosystem actors. “The current lack of an explicit UK-wide policy on inclusive entrepreneurship could mean that some parts of the country are left behind in terms of tackling structural inequalities and enabling entrepreneurs from ethnic minority communities and other under-represented or disadvantaged groups to access finance, wider markets and quality business support. “If past experience is a guide, ensuring commitment from key stakeholders may be the biggest challenge.” Andrew Harrison, head of Business Banking at NatWest Group, said: “As the UK’s biggest bank for business, we’re committed to championing small businesses and supporting growth, but we know that there are barriers which disproportionately affect Ethnic Minority Businesses (EMBs). “This is why we aim for at least 20% of the places on our 13 nationwide accelerator hubs to be for ethnic minority entrepreneurs. In 2021, 26% of businesses in our hubs were EMBs. “Only close collaboration can deliver meaningful change to ensure EMBs get the support they need to reach their full potential. Now is the time to accelerate action, and at NatWest we commit to playing an integral role in the change that is required.” The Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship (CREME) will share this report, inviting policy-makers, corporations and entrepreneurs to come together in a collaborative and strategic partnership to champion enterprise and advance entrepreneurial activities and the UKs diverse communities, further building an inclusive entrepreneurial eco-system supporting businesses to thrive at a launch event at NatWest Conference Centre in London on 10 May.
