Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Why Shrinking the Pay Gap is a Question of Dollars, Not Percentages

The gender wage gap shows no sign of improving any time soon. If anything, evidence suggests it’s growing in the United States. Recent stats show that for every dollar earned by men, women in the same job earn just 92 cents—that equates to one month of salary less in a given year. That gap widens even more for Black and other minority women. In the meantime, men’s wages are increasing—just shy of 4% in the last two years—while women’s income hasn’t budged. Organizations should take note, warn Goizueta’s Karl Schuhmacher and Kristy Towry. Wage inequity is an issue that undermines the concept of equal pay for equal work. It’s also bad for business. Employers that don’t pay or play fair with their workers stand to lose talent to competitors who offer better conditions, not to mention customers or investors who care about fairness. And that’s not all. In meritocracies, employees are incentivized to engage more, care more, and create more value because they understand their compensation is pegged to the effort they make and outcomes they achieve—to merit itself, regardless of demographics. The gender wage gap in the United States is inherently unmeritocratic. And fixing it has proved elusive—at least until now. In their new study, co-authored by Goizueta PhD graduate, Hayden T. Gunnell 25PhD of the University of Texas in Austin, Schuhmacher and Towry have come up with a novel approach to addressing the gender wage gap; one as practicable as it is simple. And it’s all down to percentages. Pay Gaps Baked In Most employers review employee salaries on an annual basis—usually yoking them to performance reviews. Overwhelmingly, managers will frame raises in terms of percentages: those doing well might be awarded a five or even 10 percent pay raise, for example. The problem with this, argues Schuhmacher, is that percentage-based raises are tied to initial salaries. And if that baseline is biased from the start, handing out similar percentage raises will only compound the problem, and perpetuate inequities—whatever the intention. If women start out getting paid less than men for the same job, and your raise budgets are framed in percentages, you end up baking those gaps in more, even if you don’t mean to. Karl Schuhmacher, Assistant Professor of Accounting “That five percent raise you’re giving everyone for the same job well done sounds fair and effective,” says Schuhmacher. “But it’s only actually fair if the initial salary is equitable—if Jane has been making the same as John from the off. And if she hasn’t—if John is being overcompensated relative to Jane—then all you’re doing is perpetuating that gap.” Awarding similar percentage raises doesn’t recognize or acknowledge preexisting, unfair discrepancies in initial salaries. A better approach, he and Towry argue, is to reframe pay raise budgets in terms of absolute dollars. “Budgeting for raises in absolute terms—a $150,000 pool for all raises in a group, say, versus a budgeted pool of 5% per person—automatically unshackles raises from preexisting unfairness in people’s pay,” says Schuhmacher. “You reduce the risk of perpetuating pay gaps by giving managers a way of assessing and evaluating work and assigning a dollar value that recognizes that work. It’s a fairer, more meritocratic approach.” It also has the effect of “nudging the cognitive processes” that employers use. Percentages are a ubiquitous way of determining raise budgets because they feel fair and easy to use, says Towry. A five percent raise for employees sounds reasonable, equitable, and doesn’t tax managers cognitively, making it simple to implement again and again—a norm or procedural “anchor” within most organizations. Substituting dollars for percentages, however, should provide enough of a nudge that managers focus more on the actual value their employees contribute to the organization. And it shouldn’t require a major rehaul of the system: a win-win for employees and organizations looking to retain talent, says Towry, where the gains significantly outweigh the effort involved. Thinking in Dollars, Not Percentages To put this idea to the test, Towry, Schuhmacher, and Gunnell enlisted Goizueta MBA students to participate in a lab experiment, taking on the role of manager at a hypothetical bank. Participants were given the salary details of four high-performing employees—two male, two female—with gender discrepancies baked into initial pay. Importantly, in this setting, male and female employees do the same job and perform equally well. Participants were divided into two camps: the first instructed to hand out percentage raises, the second dollar raises. All participants had to allocate the same pay raise budget of $30,800—5% of total salaries—among the two male and two female employees, the sole difference being that one group received a percentage budget, while the other group received a dollar budget. The results support the theory, says Towry. When participants use percentages, the individual pay raises cluster around the 5% mark, meaning that existing pay gaps are perpetuated. Kristy Towry, Professor Emerita of Accounting “Our fictional male employees, Jason and Gary, walk away with higher overall raises than Martha and Sarah, because they are already earning more than the women,” says Towry. “And this happens even though our participants know about initial pay discrepancies, and women and men perform equally well in the same job.” When participants use absolute dollars, however, this clustering effect around the 5% mark disappears. Participants give pay raises that better reflect employees’ value contributions to the organization. As such, pay raises are less dependent on initial pay gaps. In some cases, participants even award more cash to the women than the men to counteract the initial gap. “Martha ends up with a higher raise than Gary, but their initial salaries are $116,000 and $192,000, respectively,” says Towry. “So, what we’re seeing here is that our managers are asked to take out the percentage and think in dollars, they effectively redress the balance. The preexisting pay gap is reduced in recognition of equal merit.” Reproducing this in real-word settings shouldn’t be difficult for organizations. And at a time when gaps are becoming more entrenched and progress on equitable pay is stagnating in the United States, there is a clear imperative ahead of employers interested in sending clear signals to existing and future male and female talent, says Schuhmacher. Pay that reflects performance fairly is inherently meritocratic and we know that being a meritocracy is attractive to employees—to your existing workforce and to the workforce that you want to attract. Karl Schuhmacher “When people know they’re being evaluated based on their results, regardless of their gender or background, they are more motivated to work hard,” says Schumacher. “The beauty of this solution is that it supports a more meritocratic way of rewarding talent. It’s also easy to implement—easier than interventions like bias training or organizational audits that consume time and resources. Using dollars instead of percentages is something that organizations can do that translates into real impact. And it’s something that they can do in a day. Our advice: start tomorrow!”

Survey says: Senior leaders are using AI, but they could use more direction

Over the years, study upon study has shown that senior leaders are slower to adapt to new technology – email, the Internet and social media – than younger employees. That’s not necessarily so with AI, according to the University of Delaware’s Saleem Mistry. Mistry, associate professor of management at UD's Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics, recently conducted a survey of more than 200 university alumni, 75% of which had more than 16 years of professional experience. He found that senior leaders are actively adopting AI to solve their biggest challenges. However, they are doing so largely without structured support or guidance. Here are four findings from Mistry's survey that shows how AI is actually being used at the top. Senior Leaders Are Overwhelmingly Self-Taught Mistry said his most glaring finding is the gap between high AI adoption among senior leaders and the near-total absence of formal corporate support. Although a majority use these tools, they are almost entirely self-taught, which highlights visible opportunity that organizations aren’t really steering the AI conversation for leaders: • High usage. 62% of all senior leaders surveyed use AI tools "regularly" or "occasionally" in their work. • Training gap. Of those users, an overwhelming 80% report their organization provides "Never" or only "Sometimes" (mostly never) adequate training. Mistry said this shows that leaders from VP level down are using tools like ChatGPT and Copilot informally to keep up with heavy workloads, without any real organizational guidance. The stakes are high. In the survey, a vice president of legal was using AI for compliance tasks and a manager of three was using it for performance reviews, both with no formal training. “These are senior leaders handling sensitive work while essentially figuring it out on their own,” Mistry said. There is a clear ladder of AI use Leaders are not using AI randomly. There is a clear progression in how they use it, moving through three levels. • Tier 1 (The Drafters) This is the most common starting point. Leaders use AI to improve writing and communication. They draft emails, shape documents, and refine tone. As one Director of Product put it, it helps him "polish phrasing" and adjust tone and voice. • Tier 2 (The Synthesizers) At this stage, leaders use AI to manage information overload. They summarize meetings, condense documents, and pull together research so they can keep up with large volumes of input. As one leader managing a team of 200 said, "Being a leader requires attention in a variety of areas. AI helps me manage the vast amounts of information I need to consume." • Tier 3 (The Architects) Here, leaders move beyond writing and summarizing. They use AI to automate parts of their work. This includes building agents, creating custom GPTs, or designing tools that track work and performance. One leader managing 300 people said, "It will eliminate half or more of my overhead." Managers and individual contributors use AI for different reasons People managers and individual contributors (IC) are using AI for very different reasons based on their roles. • For people managers, their main challenge is scale. They are overloaded with communication and administration, so they use AI to reduce noise and keep up. They lean heavily on summarization and tone adjustment tools. • For project leads and ICs, their focus is output. They use AI to produce work faster, including drafting content, building decks, writing code, or generating ideas. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. Resistance to AI is mostly intentional Among the 38 percent of leaders who do not use AI, resistance is usually not based on lack of awareness. It falls into three groups: • The Ethical Objectors. Some avoid AI due to concerns about its broader impact. • The Quality Skeptics. Some do not trust the output and feel it is not reliable enough for important work. • The Blocked. Some are not allowed to use AI due to company policy. Mistry concludes that there is a clear overall pattern: Leaders are using AI in practical ways, but mostly without structured support or guidance. “If it feels like you are figuring this out as you go without much help from your organization, that is consistent with what most leaders are experiencing,” Mistry said. To connect directly with Mistry and arrange an interview, visit his profile page and click on the "connect" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Expert Insights: Want More Engagement? Eliminate the Barriers.

Anyone born in the 70’s or earlier will probably remember it well. Time was when playing any kind of video game meant physically disporting yourself to the local arcade—a twilight zone of flashing neon, electronic beeps and bops, and the clink of quarters hitting the slot. As technology advanced, the videogame came to you. Home consoles and TV stations rigged with joysticks duly became the mainstay of gaming. The Atari 2600 brought the arcade experience into dens all over the US; Pac-Man, Space Invaders, and Asteroids now at the fingertips of a generation of games who no longer needed to leave home to play. Fast forward to the era of smart phones and hi-tech, and gaming has evolved again. Today, Fortnite, Minecraft, and The Legend of Zelda can accompany you pretty much anywhere—onto a train or a bus, into the canteen at work or school, or under the covers at 2am. In our always-on, on-demand world, video gaming increasingly meets players where they are; a play-anywhere, digital user experience that empowers individuals to engage with their game of choice wherever they are, whenever it suits, and via whatever platform they prefer, desktop or mobile. For users, the benefits seem clear. But what about game producers? As availability expands to new channels and platforms, how does it change user behavior? Does it deepen engagement or does cross-platform continuity simply end up redistributing play—the addition of each new platform shifting players away from, and effectively cannibalizing, existing channels? It’s a conundrum, and not just for video game producers. Retailers, bankers, insurance firms, media, and hospitality providers—anyone with an online-first approach looking to meet their customers wherever they are—should also be cognizant of the potential downsides of channel expansion in the digital space. Weighing in here is research by Professor of Marketing and expert in the intersection of sports and cultural analytics and marketing Michael Lewis. Together with Wooyong Jo of Purdue, Lewis looks at the impact of omni-channel strategy on videogames—a proxy, he says, for other sectors and industries. What they find is critical for marketers and decision-makers in any context or business setting. Increasing the digital touchpoints between your product and customers does impact behavior—but the net results are overwhelmingly positive. Video game players play more, they spend more frequently, and they integrate gameplay more deeply into their everyday lives. In other words, the investment pays off. And the dividends in customer engagement are serious. Switching to the Switch To unpack all of this, Lewis and Jo partnered with a large US video game publisher to analyze player-level behavioral data for one its major titles in the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, or MOBA genre. Players form teams and compete to destroy opposing team’s bases, selecting a character from a set of 100+ options. Revenue for the publisher comes from a “freemium” business model—users can make voluntary purchases to unlock new characters or buy cosmetic enhancements. These purchases are geared toward enhancing the gaming experience but don’t affect competitive outcomes, making them a critical measure of engagement. In 2019, the game was released for the Nintendo Switch, which can be docked in home consoles but is most commonly used as a mobile, hand-held device. PC players were given the option to download this new version and continue gameplay seamlessly using their existing accounts. Analyzing player behavior before and after the adoption of the new Switch platform, Lewis and Jo were able to zoom in on some critical measures of user engagement including game usage or the total number of matches played, in-game spending—what, when and how much players spent—and player inactivity or churn. “We were able to really get into player behavior over time, and what happens when you introduce the Switch option and remove the constraints of having to play in one place—the home or gaming PC,” says Lewis. “What happens when you make it possible for players to access the game they love while they’re commuting or on their lunchbreak?” Plenty, it turns out. Mobile access: gameplay, spending and churn Crunching the data, Lewis and Jo find that mobile access dramatically increases gameplay. Players who adopted the Switch version played approximately 31% more games than before—a dramatic uptick that underscores how flexibility gains translate into new opportunities to play and engage. And that’s not all. Lewis and Jo also find that gameplay becomes less concentrated within narrow windows—after school or work, say—and is now more spread out across the day, the result of the “ubiquity effect,” says Lewis. “Take away the constraints of having to be in a fixed location and you see players adding additional play sessions. Interestingly though, we don’t find any adverse effect on PC gaming. Players are simply playing more, and playing longer, rather than replacing PC time.” Then there’s in-game purchasing. MOBA-type games typically give players the option to voluntarily buy modifications for characters, known as “skins.” These skins are cosmetic enhancements: new armor, costumes, skill animations or effects. Crucially, these kinds of purchases don’t advance players to new levels of success in the game. Instead, they are used for personalization—to demonstrate status or to celebrate an in-game event. Lewis and Jo find that mobile adopters make more frequent in-game purchases. While the overall total doesn’t increase materially, these players are spending small amounts, more often—almost 7% more frequently than before. This makes intuitive sense, says Lewis. If players are logging in more often, they have more opportunities to feel inspired to want to spend on skins. But there’s another factor that may be at work. “With this kind of in-game purchasing, it’s likely that a lot of it is about credibility. When you buy a skin or a character pack, it’s like you have more aura within the game; you want to signal something to other players and let yourself be known. And this is more than just monetary, it’s about a deeper kind of engagement,” says Lewis. “It’s possible that as mobile access makes the game more of a frequent companion, as the rate of play increases, there’s this effect that players fall deeper into the community—their engagement deepens even more.” Interestingly, the shift to mobile access had the most significant impact precisely on those players whose pre-Switch in-game purchasing was lowest. These users, who were arguably most likely to disengage and drift away from the game, became significantly more active once the hand-held option became available. “If you have players spending less and less inside the game, the intuition is that these are the customers you are most at risk of losing,” says Lewis. “Bringing in the Switch has seen these customers—those more prone to churn—actively reengage with the game, maybe because they have greater propensity for the mobile version.” Either way, this should be a particularly interesting finding for marketers, he adds; retaining existing users is typically cheaper than attracting new ones. “The evidence suggests that mobile access can serve not only as a growth strategy, but also a defensive one if it helps keep marginal users engaged; those who might otherwise have detached from the product altogether.” Help Them Switch So far, so encouraging. There is one potential downside to porting a game or online product to a new channel, however, and that is usability. Lewis and Jo find that players who switched between platforms experience a slight, initial decline in in-game performance—likely because of differences in the control systems between devices. Players who’ve been using keyboard and mouse controls may need time to adapt to hand-held controllers. To mitigate this, he and Jo suggest that producers could offer tutorials or introductory gameplay modes that accelerate the learning curve as users adjust to the new interface. In most cases, usability should be factored in as an additional, hidden cost, when developers and organizations are contemplating investing in more online customer touchpoints. “Expanding your online channels will always have some cost. Taking a game from one platform and porting it to another one isn’t free, so you will want to anticipate the hurdles, even as you weigh up the clear benefits,” says Lewis. “The key is to make sure you protect your users. With things like video games, you want to think about how to guide or upskill your players, maybe have them play bots at first to ramp up their capabilities. Whenever you create a new channel that has a different operating system from the user’s perspective, you’re probably going to want to provide some aid to your fan community.” The benefits of omni-channel access should always be weighted against the costs involved, counsels Lewis. Even so, today’s competitive pressures—the seemingly inexorable march of technological innovation and evolving user expectations—are likely to make platform expansion unavoidable for most online businesses. In the world of video gaming, as major franchises release new products across multiple platforms, and player preferences become more sophisticated, companies may simply have to adopt similar strategies to remain competitive. “As everyone else invests in the same new technologies, you almost have to do the same—just as a matter of doing business,” says Lewis. “If you are launching a video game, you’ve got to compete with whatever Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto are doing. You can’t just tell your players they can only engage on one platform. The competition is continuously raising the stakes just in terms of the bare minimum.” Building Fandom: the Connective Cultural Tissue More broadly, Lewis and Jo’s findings speak to how human beings form communities of shared passion around business entities and, perhaps more compellingly, around cultural phenomena: video games, for sure, but also sports teams, music, films, comic books, fashion, and more. Understanding the mechanisms that drive and deepen engagement sheds more light on what Lewis calls the “connective cultural tissue of fandom: ”the powerful social bonds, camaraderie, and shared identity that connect people to cultural entities and to each other. Fandom, he argues, is the “key to our world.” Understanding fan behavior is critical to understanding how it is that games, brands, sporting teams, or politics forge communities built on shared passion. “Whatever your organization or business is, you are going to be interested in driving passion. You want people to engage and love what you do. What we’re looking at in this study is a building block towards understanding how cultural entities fit into consumers’ lives, and how eliminating barriers helps to expand communities and drive relationships—extending reach and engagement by weaving cultural experiences more deeply into everyday life.” The real challenge in front of organizations, be they video game producers or online retailers, says Lewis, is to give their product the kind of “cultural meaning” that creates fans—and not just users. “When you think about the behavior of fans, the level of passion and engagement that exists around cultural phenomena—whatever they are from video games to FIFA, the English Football League to the Super Bowl, Taylor Swift to the Republican Party—that’s where you see the passion that really drives the world. And that to me, is critical in understanding how business works, how societies function, and how our world evolves.”

Gritty like his city: How the Philadelphia Flyers' mascot went from punchline to sensation

How did Gritty, the fluffy, orange, menacing whatchamacallit that backs the Philadelphia Flyers, go from a punchline when he was rolled out in 2018 to one of sports' most well-known and beloved mascots? The University of Delaware's Matt Robinson took a shot, and scored, with some answers. Robinson, a professor of sport management at UD's Lerner College of Business & Economics, said Gritty embodies the tough attitude that Philadelphia is known for. Also, some of his bizarre features and personality traits go straight to the heart of the demeanor and history of the Flyers, who are currently battling their way through the NHL playoffs. Those are among the ingredients that go into marketing and launching a successful mascot.  Robinson can discuss the following: • Why some mascots take off and others flop. After his launch, Gritty was ridiculed as a concept on late night TV and "Saturday Night Live." But he was still garnering billions of views on social media and millions in earned media for the franchise. The Flyers kept pushing the concept despite its early unpopularity, which led to his eventual success. "Any public relations is good public relations," Robinson said. • Mascots need to be authentic. Gritty embodies the team he represents and the city that team plays in. Robinson noted Philadelphia's "grit" and love of players who play hard, like the Broad Street Bullies – the nasty group of Flyers' players who led the team to two Stanley Cup wins in the 1970s.  • The best mascots transcend sports. Robinson pointed to the film and character "Rocky," whose statue sits in the front of the city's Art Museum, as well as the city's reputation as one with a bit of an edge. "We're the ones who threw snowballs at Santa Claus," Robinson said, referring to the infamous 1968 incident when Philadelphia Eagles fans pelted Kris Kringle from the stands. • Players and coaches come and go, but the mascot stays the same. Mascots can be part of ticket sales and community engagement in the offseason, when players may not be in the city or moving to another via free agency. • Mascots offer an attachment point for fans that is not sport related. Kids respond to mascots and, from there, connection with the team, players and the sport can grow. To contact Robinson directly for an interview, visit his profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

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.

TCU Chemistry Researcher Named a Big 12 Faculty of the Year

Kayla Green has built an internationally recognized research program while mentoring the next generation of scientists at Texas Christian University, and her efforts are getting noticed. The chemistry professor and assistant dean of undergraduate affairs at the Louise Dilworth Davis College of Science & Engineering represents TCU among this year’s Big 12 Faculty of the Year honorees. The Big 12 Faculty of the Year Award honors outstanding faculty who excel in innovation and research at each of the athletic conference’s 16 universities. Honorees represent and reflect the best attributes that make a Big 12 college campus a bastion for learning and growth. “In my view, Professor Green exemplifies the fact that student success cannot happen without research, and world-leading research cannot happen without authentic, student-centered experiences,” wrote a nominator when Green was named the 2025 winner of the Chancellor’s Award for Distinguished Achievement as a Creative Teacher and Scholar. “Professor Green has maintained a vibrant, externally funded research program throughout the past 15 years, a distinction shared by very few TCU faculty.”  Green was chosen in part for her international reputation in the field of inorganic chemistry as applied to neurodegenerative diseases and catalysis, as well as her leadership in a growing research program that has brought in more than $2.5 million in external support. This includes work with Ben Janesko, professor and chair of chemistry and biochemistry, and biology professors Giri Akkaraju and Michael Chumley on a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Green’s collaborative work with students highlights her ability to weave together research and mentorship. “Dr. Green’s vision and drive have strengthened the foundation of our college,” said T. Dwayne McCay, interim dean of Davis College. “Her ability to inspire students and colleagues alike reflects the kind of leadership that propels our mission forward.”  One of her most impactful initiatives is Chemistry Boot Camp, a program she developed with colleagues Janesko and Heidi Conrad to help incoming students build confidence before their first chemistry class.  The Big 12 Faculty of the Year Award is intended to showcase the diversity of research breakthroughs and educational opportunities afforded to students attending Big 12 institutions and helps attract future students. This year’s award recipients stretch across a vast array of departments. “We are constantly looking for ways to highlight how Big 12 faculty continue to educate and inspire the next generation of leaders,” Jenn Hunter, Big 12 chief impact officer said. “From the arts and filmmaking to business and engineering, this year’s cohort showcases the vast opportunities available to students pursuing an education on Big 12 campuses.” Faculty members were nominated by their institutions in conjunction with conference faculty athletic representatives, provosts and other university leaders. “I’m very honored to represent TCU as a Big 12 Faculty of the Year,” Green said. “I hope that I am not expected to exhibit any athletic skill sets but am happy to cheer on the Frogs in all they do in our classrooms and competitions! Congratulations to the honorees from across our great conference. TCU has the best faculty, and I am happy to represent them in this capacity.”

Energy Shocks, Consumer Pullback, and the Long Road Back

As Americans scale back spending on luxuries and some necessities — from dining out and live entertainment to home and auto maintenance — the ripple effects are being felt across the broader economy. Daniel Burnside, clinical professor of finance at the Simon Business School, says the trend reflects more than just belt-tightening and signals deeper structural pressures tied to energy markets. “Higher energy prices push inflation up and growth down, putting monetary policymakers in a bind,” Burnside says, explaining the current situation as being beyond a typical price spike. “This isn’t just a price shock, it’s a capacity shock,” he says. “You can’t just flip a switch back to normal because a lot of energy infrastructure has been destroyed. That distinction matters. Because energy costs are embedded in nearly every good and service, rising prices squeeze consumers beyond the gas pump. The result is reduced discretionary spending at venues like sporting and live music events, restaurants, and leisure destinations. Looking ahead, Burnside says a rapid rebound in discretionary spending is possible but unlikely. “If, by some miracle, energy prices quickly return to prewar levels, you would see a sharp run-up in discretionary stocks,” he says. “But that’s precisely because expectations are so low.” For now, markets are signaling that a swift return to pre-crisis conditions isn’t on its way, Burnside says. Until energy supply stabilizes, the pressure on both consumers and the businesses that rely on it is likely to persist. Burnside regularly fields inquiries from journalists looking for his insight on personal money matters and investing. Contact him 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.

Using AI tools empowers and burdens users in online Q&A communities

Whether you’ve searched for cooking tips on Reddit, troubleshooted tech problems on community forums or asked questions on platforms like Quora, you’ve benefited from online help communities. These digital spaces rely on people across the world to contribute their knowledge for free, and have become an essential tool for solving problems and learning new skills. New research reveals that generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT are creating a double-edge effect on users in these communities, simultaneously making them more helpful while potentially overwhelming them to the point of decreasing their responses. “On the positive side, AI helps users learn to write more organized and readable answers, leading to a noticeable increase in the number of responses,” explained Liangfei Qiu, Ph.D., study coauthor and PricewaterhouseCoopers Professor at the University of Florida Warrington College of Business. “However, when users rely too heavily on AI, the mental effort required to process and refine AI outputs can actually reduce participation. In other words, AI both empowers and burdens contributors: it enables more engagement and better readability, but too much reliance can slow people down.” The study examined Stack Overflow, one of the world’s largest question-and-answer coding platforms for computer programmers, to investigate the impact of generative AI on both the quality and quantity of user contributions. Qiu and his coauthor Guohou Shan of Northeastern University’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business measured the impact of AI on users’ number of answers generated per day, answer length and readability. Specifically, they found that users who used AI tools to generate their responses contributed almost 17% more answers per day compared to those who didn’t use AI. The answers generated with AI were both shorter by about 23% and easier to read. However, when people relied too heavily on AI tools, their participation decreased. Qiu and Shan noted that the additional cognitive burden associated with heavier AI usage negatively affected the impact on a user’s answer quality. For online help communities grappling with AI policies, this research provides valuable insight into how these policies can be updated in the current AI environment. While some communities, like Stack Overflow, have banned AI tools, this research suggests that a more nuanced approach could be a better solution. Instead of banning AI entirely, the researchers suggest striking a balance between allowing AI usage while promoting responsible and moderated use. This approach, they argue, would enable users to benefit from efficiency and learning opportunities, while not compromising quality content and user cognition. “For platform leaders, the takeaway is clear: AI can boost participation if thoughtfully integrated, but its cognitive demands must be managed to sustain long-term user contributions,” Qiu said.