Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Survival analysis: Forecasting lifespans of patients and products

How long will you live? Should you spring for that AppleCare+ warranty for your iPhone? When will your buddy pay you back for that lunch? For centuries, soothsayers have striven to understand the lifespan of things – be they patient longevity, product lifecycles, or even time to loan default. Nowadays, scientists have turned away from reading tea leaves and toward survival analysis – a complex data science method for predicting not only whether an event will happen (the death of a patient, the failure of a product or machine, default on a payment, and so on) but when this event is likely to occur. But it’s problematic. Until now, the tools of survival analysis have only been applicable in certain settings. This is due to the inherent heterogeneity of what is being analyzed: differences in patient lifestyles, demographics, product usage patterns, and so on. New research by Goizueta Business School’s Donald Lee, associate professor of information systems and operations management and of biostatistics and bioinformatics, has yielded a new tool that greatly extends survival analysis to broader use cases. “Historically, scientists have used classic survival analysis tools to predict the lifespan of different things in different fields, from products to patients,” Lee said. “Since the 1950s, the Kaplan-Meier estimator has been the benchmark for analyzing lifetime data, particularly in clinical trials. The next breakthrough came in the 1970s when the Cox proportional hazards model was introduced, which allows researchers to incorporate variables that can affect the predictability of things like patient mortality.” The problem with the existing survival analysis tools, Lee said, is that they make certain assumptions that can skew the predictions if the assumptions are not met. “There are very few existing tools that can incorporate variables without imposing assumptions on how they affect survival, let alone when there are a lot of variables that can also change over time. For example, two iPhones will have different lifespans depending on the temperature at which they are stored, amongst many other factors. But it’s unlikely that storing your phone at 30 degrees will halve its lifespan compared to storing it at 60 degrees. This sort of linear relationship is commonly assumed by existing tools.” Lee’s team developed a new survival methodology based on something called gradient boosting: a machine learning technique that combines decision trees to yield predictions. The method, Lee said, is totally assumption-free (or nonparametric in technical parlance) and can deal with a large number of variables that can change continuously over time, making it significantly more general than existing methods. Nothing like it has been seen until now, he noted. “Calculating the survival rate of anything is super complex because of the variables. Say you want to create an app for a smart watch that monitors the wearer’s vitals and use this information to create a real-time warning indicator for stroke. Doing this accurately is difficult for two reasons,” Lee explained. “First, a large number of variables may be relevant to stroke risk, and the variables can interact in ways that break the assumptions central to existing survival analysis methods. And second, variables like blood pressure vary over time, and it is the recent measurements that are most informative. This introduces an additional time dimension that further complicates things.” The software implementation of Lee’s method, BoXHED, overcomes both issues and allows scientists to develop real-time predictive models for conditions like stroke. The trained model can then be ported to a watch app to tell its wearer if and when they’re likely to have a stroke, a process known as inferencing in machine learning lingo. The implications, Lee said, are huge. “BoXHED now opens the door for modern applications of survival analysis. In previous research, I have looked at the design of early warning mortality indicators for patients with advanced cancer and also for patients in the ICU. These use other methods to make predictions at fixed points in time, but now they can be transformed into real-time warning indicators using BoXHED.” He cited the case of end-stage cancer patients who are often better served by hospice care than by aggressive therapy. “Accurate predictions of survival are absolutely critical for care planning. In previous analyses, we have seen that using existing predictive models to inform end-of-life care planning can potentially avert $1.9 million in medical costs and 1,600 days of unnecessary inpatient care per 1,000 patient visits in the United States. BoXHED is likely to lead to even better results.” Lee’s research paper is forthcoming in the Annals of Statistics. He has also created an open-source software implementation of BoXHED, which can radically improve the accuracy of survival analysis across a breadth of applications. The paper describing BoXHED was published in the International Conference on Machine Learning, and the latest version of the BoXHED software can be found online. If you are a journalist or looking to speak with Donald Lee – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview or appointment today.

Study of auto recalls shows carmakers delay announcements until they can 'hide in the herd'

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. - Automotive recalls are occurring at record levels, but seem to be announced after inexplicable delays. A research study of 48 years of auto recalls announced in the United States finds carmakers frequently wait to make their announcements until after a competitor issues a recall - even if it is unrelated to similar defects. This suggests that recall announcements may not be triggered solely by individual firms' product quality defect awareness or concern for the public interest, but may also be influenced by competitor recalls, a phenomenon that no prior research had investigated. Researchers analyzed 3,117 auto recalls over a 48-year period -- from 1966 to 2013 -- using a model to investigate recall clustering and categorized recalls as leading or following within a cluster. They found that 73 percent of recalls occurred in clusters that lasted 34 days and had 7.6 following recalls on average. On average, a cluster formed after a 16-day gap in which no recalls were announced. They found 266 such clusters over the period studied. "The implication is that auto firms are either consciously or unconsciously delaying recall announcements until they are able to hide in the herd," said George Ball, assistant professor of operations and decision technologies and Weimer Faculty Fellow at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. "By doing this, they experience a significantly reduced stock penalty from their recall." Ball is co-author of the study, "Hiding in the Herd: The Product Recall Clustering Phenomenon," recently published online in Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, along with faculty at the University of Illinois, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Minnesota and Michigan State University. Researchers found as much as a 67 percent stock market penalty difference between leading recalls, which initiate the cluster, and following recalls, who follow recalls and hide in the herd to experience a lower stock penalty. This indicates a "meaningful financial incentive for auto firms to cluster following recalls behind a leading recall announcement," researchers said. "This stock market penalty difference dissipates over time within a cluster. Additionally, across clusters, the stock market penalty faced by the leading recall amplifies as the time since the last cluster increases." The authors also found that firms with the highest quality reputation, in particular Toyota, triggered the most recall followers. "Even though Toyota announces some of the fewest recalls, when they do announce a recall, 31 percent of their recalls trigger a cluster and leads to many other following recalls," Ball said. "This number is between 5 and 9 percent for all other firms. This means that firms are likely to hide in the herd when the leading recall is announced by a firm with a stellar quality reputation such as Toyota. "A key recommendation of the study is for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require auto firms to report the specific defect awareness date for each recall, and to make this defect awareness date a searchable and publicly available data field in the auto recall dataset NHTSA provides online," Ball added. "This defect awareness date is required and made available by other federal regulators that oversee recalls in the U.S., such as the Food and Drug Administration. Making this defect awareness date a transparent, searchable and publicly available data field may discourage firms from hiding in the herd and prompt them to make more timely and transparent recall decisions." Co-authors of the study were Ujjal Mukherjee, assistant professor of business administration at the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois who was the lead author; Kaitlin Wowak, assistant professor of IT, analytics, and operations at the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame; Karthik Natarajan, assistant professor of supply chain and operations at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota; and Jason Miller, associate professor of supply chain management at the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University.

Why customers hold the key to a company’s true valuation

When determining a fair valuation for a company—especially in anticipation of an initial public offering (IPO)—investors often rely heavily on “top down” approaches focusing primarily on traditional financial measures to do so. But what if this approach doesn’t paint the full picture? Daniel McCarthy, assistant professor of marketing at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, is building the case that augmenting traditional data sources with customer behavior data gives investors a more accurate company valuation. For the past several years, McCarthy and Peter Fader, professor of marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, have worked to refine a customer-driven investment methodology they created. “Customer-based corporate valuation (CBCV) simply brings more focus to how individual customer behavior drives the top line,” they explained in “How to Value a Company by Analyzing Its Customers,” an article published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) earlier this year. “This approach is driving a meaningful shift away from the common but dangerous mindset of ‘growth at all costs,’ towards revenue durability and unit economics—and bringing a much higher degree of precision, accountability, and diagnostic value to the new loyalty economy.” Fader, McCarthy’s PhD advisor while he was at Wharton, had done some of the seminal work on forecasting customer shopping/purchasing behaviors. This helped build baseline expertise for how one could go about the customer-level modeling. McCarthy recognized that this behavioral modeling could be put to good use in a financial setting, if done the right way. “There was this untapped source of intellectual property that’s been accumulating within marketing over the last 30 years,” McCarthy said. While other academics have done some conceptual work in the area, none, McCarthy noted, had done so in a way that was consistent with how financial professionals go about performing corporate valuation. McCarthy and Fader merged these well-validated customer-level models with standard corporate valuation methods, then put their resulting valuation tool head-to-head with alternative approaches. They found that their CBCV model subsequently outperformed. A full article on this subject is attached, within it, you will find key CBCV highlights such as: Using unit economics to more accurately predict revenue forecasts Gaining access to the right data The CBCV model is also good for managers and for customers Working to have publicly traded companies adopt CBCV McCarthy’s work on the CBCV methodology has earned him a number of awards, including the MSI Alden G. Clayton, American Statistical Association, INFORMS, and the Shankar-Spiegel dissertation awards. If you are a journalist covering this topic or if you want to learn more about this work or customer-based corporate valuation – then let our experts help. Daniel McCarthy is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Emory University's Goizueta School of Business where his research specialty is the application of leading-edge statistical methodology to contemporary empirical marketing problems. If you are looking to contact Daniel – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

What Does the GameStop Buying Spree Tell Us?

Villanova School of Business assistant professor Keith Wright was in the chat rooms when individual investors were discussing pumping up the GameStop stock and forcing the hedge fund shorts to have to cover, losing millions of dollars. "At the time, David was clearly beating Goliath," says Wright, adding that some of the young people on Reddit had done extremely well. "They made significant money on their investments. Some of them were a little late; you don’t want to be the last one in who takes the position at the top." He adds, "I have a feeling that this may actually be something revolutionary, and we're seeing the bottom of the pyramid—which is Generation Z, the Millennials, the Robin Hood investors—really changing the game." "Going forward, you've got this group that's collaborating, and that makes them extremely powerful," says Wright. "If they all follow each other into a position, they can really move markets in any direction they choose... Are they powerful enough as a group to defeat the hedge funds? Now, maybe they win this battle and they lose the war. Or maybe they win this battle and they decide to try a couple of others. This is not the only occurrence; this is one stock, but it's happening in a couple of other positions as well." As to whether a group of people should have this type of an effect on the stock market, Wright suggests that maybe it's a good thing. "We live in an economy where wealth is very unbalanced. You have a lot of people at the very top who are doing extremely well. But there is some inequity, and these short sellers used to crush the average retail investor, but no longer. Maybe this will create some equity, and maybe it will even the playing field a little bit."

Why are U.S. corporate boards under-diversified?

Research tells us that firms with diverse workforces generally outperform those that do not. And in recent years, corporate America has taken significant strides towards greater heterogeneity in the employee base. But a problem remains at the top. U.S. boardrooms remain overwhelmingly Anglo Saxon and male. No less than 81 percent of the Standard & Poor (S&P) 1500 Index directors in America today are white men. White women account for 11 percent, while ethnic minority men make up 6 percent. Meanwhile, female minority board members account for just 2 percent of the total. For businesses, this is becoming problematic, not least because institutional investors and regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission have started asking firms to open up about their processes in selecting board members. Where diversity is a criterion, firms are required to be transparent about specifications and frameworks. Shedding light on this issue is new research from Grace Pownall, professor of accounting, and Justin Short, assistant professor of accounting, at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Together with Zawadi Lemayian of Washington University, they parsed 12 years of data on gender, ethnicity, and salaries from the S&P 1500 to build a composite picture of who’s who and who’s paid what in U.S. boardrooms. What they found points to a systemic shortage of female and minority executives making it onto shortlists for board appointments. But that’s not all. Once women and minority men do make it onto the board, there’s another roadblock waiting for them: they are not getting promoted at the same rate as their white, male counterparts. There seem to be two complex dynamics at play, said Short: a glass ceiling effect hampering the upward trajectory of Black, female, and other minority executives, and what he and his co-authors call “myopic” bias on the part of corporate America. “We developed two hypotheses that might explain what’s behind the lack of diversity on boards,” explained Short. “The glass ceiling hypothesis comes from what we see as a shortfall of women and ethnic minorities in the workforce relative to white men—so the theory here is that these groups just aren’t getting promoted to the point where they would be considered for board positions.” “The alternative hypothesis we worked on was that there might actually be a plentiful supply, but that companies just don’t see directors from different backgrounds as being as valuable in the same way,” he said. “And we would put this down to some kind of institutional myopia or bias at the very highest echelons of business.” To put these hypotheses to the test, Short and his colleagues first collected demographical data on American board members from a database compiled by Institutional Shareholders Services. Here they were able to determine the gender and ethnicity of individuals. They also ran a simple statistical regression on salaries using data from S&P. Then they compared the two. “Economic theory tells us that if there’s a high demand for diverse directors—women and ethnic minorities—and there’s a low supply of them, then these directors will be able to command higher salaries than others,” said Short. “It’s a simple case of supply and demand, and minorities will come at a greater premium.” Looking at the S&P 1500 data, they found that female and minority directors were indeed getting paid more on average than white male counterparts in other companies. And when they analyzed this more closely, Short and his co-authors found that these salaries were in general being paid by larger, more successful firms. “We can see that women and minorities are commanding higher compensation than the average white male director across the S&P universe of 1500 companies, and it’s the bigger, better paying firms that are hiring them,” Short said. “So that tells us that the top companies are proactively trying to build diversity in their boardrooms. At the same time, it shows there is a deficit of supply in this talent pool—the so-called glass ceiling dynamic.” To understand whether bias or institutional myopia might also be limiting the prospects of Black, female, and ethnic directors, Short et al. also looked at differences in compensation within the same company, and here they found something striking. While they made more on average than the typical white male director in U.S. firms, minority directors were being paid around 3 percent less than their direct counterparts – the white male directors on the same board. All this scrutiny begs the questions: What is going on in the American boardroom? And why is there still such a stark lack of diversity in the upper echelons of business in the U.S. today? “This tells us something important,” said Short. “Once these directors make it to the board, for most of them that’s it. They don’t advance or achieve promotion at the same rate.” This could be due to bias or what Short calls a Rolodex effect: “Maybe it’s because they didn’t go to the same school as the chairman of the board, or weren’t connected socially in the same way, so they don’t appear in the Rolodex of candidates with right or familiar credentials to get promoted within the board,” he said. “We know it’s not about hard skills or aptitudes because the data shows us that women and minority directors typically hold more qualifications than their counterparts. But for whatever reason, once they are on the board, they fail to advance in the same way as white men.” Interestingly, Short and his colleagues found that there was a very small number of women and minority directors sitting on the boards of multiple companies in the U.S. “Pulling it all together, we see that there’s a generalized shortage of women and ethnic group candidates in the U.S.,” Short said. “Successful companies are proactively on the lookout for them and offer higher compensation to attract them. “But there seems to be a glass ceiling effect acting as a bottle neck for talent. We also see that minority directors become a bit stuck once they’re on a board. The upward momentum tails off relative to their white, male colleagues. This could be due to bias or myopic thinking.” All of this should provide rich food for thought for the most senior decision-makers in U.S. enterprises, according to Short and his co-authors. With the pressure on to drive board-level diversity in corporate American, leaders need to be cognizant of the roadblocks or cut-off points to tie to ethnicity and gender. “Diversity is something we urgently need to enable and nurture in the United States. Without diversity, creativity and innovation can stall, and in business you run the risk of deferring to group think—sourcing ideas and perspectives from the same small pool of shared experience or expertise,” said Short. “It’s encouraging to see that diversity has increased over time and the largest companies are proactive. But there are still vast gaps of representation on the board compared to the workforce. There’s still work to be done because diversity in American business should be commonplace.” If you are a journalist looking to cover this research or to learn more about the diversification of corporate boards in America, then let our experts help. Grace Pownall, professor of accounting, and Justin Short, assistant professor of accounting, at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School are both available for interviews; simply click on either expert's icon to arrange a time today.

Hitting all the right notes - Georgia Southern music industry degree ready to launch

Georgia Southern University’s Department of Music earned national accreditation for a new music industry degree, the final step for an innovative program that combines music, technology and entrepreneurship. Launching in the fall of 2021, the new music industry program will prepare musicians for evolving careers in music. The program curriculum combines a traditional degree with 21st-century technology and performance opportunities. Accreditation from the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) allows the new program, Bachelor of Arts in Music with a concentration in music industry, to be offered at the Armstrong Campus in Savannah. Students will have the option of declaring an emphasis area in music technology or music business. “We could not be more excited about this program,” said Steven A. Harper, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Music. “For many years, the music program has been itching to expand its reach and regional impact. Savannah is perfectly suited for a degree of this type and we couldn’t be more pleased to have this degree come to fruition.” The music industry program includes courses in music management, live sound, recording studio techniques, digital audio workstations and music entrepreneurship. “The numerous music industries in Savannah include music manufacturers, performing organizations/venues and major music festivals. These industries can provide ample internship possibilities for hands-on experience in a chosen area,” Harper said. “We are able to reach a student body we’ve never been able to serve before. We can prepare students for a whole different set of in-demand careers and we can create ties with the music industry in Savannah in a way that’s never been possible for us until now. It’s going to be a huge boon for the department, the college, the university and the Armstrong Campus.” One professor key to the program will be Stephen Primatic, DMA, who teaches percussion, theory, jazz and music technology. His versatility is evidenced by the books he has written: two on percussion pedagogy and another on instrument maintenance and repair. “This program will be beneficial to our students, the University and the community of Savannah, offering education and training for music careers in the 21st century,” said Primatic. If you are a journalist looking to know more about the Bachelor of Arts in Music with a concentration in music industry or would like to interview Steven A. Harper, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Music or Professor Stephen Primatic -- simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to set and time and date.

IU Kelley School finance expert available to discuss GameStop, Robinhood

Charles Trzcinka, the James and Virginia Cozad Chair of Finance at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business and an expert on financial markets and investments, is closely following developments involving individual investors and Game Stop and available to talk with reporters. He can discuss the impact of retail investors using the popular Robinhood brokerage and Reddit’s “Wall Street Bets” page on the stock of low priced companies like Gamestop, AMC and stocks such as BlackBerry, Bed Bath and Beyond and Nokia. Several brokerages halt buying of those and other stocks on Thursday. Trzcinka teaches behavioral finance and is familiar with Robinhood's model is to use game technology to trade stock and how it makes money by selling the right to trade against the orders to hedge funds and high frequency traders. In order to schedule an interview, contact George Vlahakis, associate director of communications and media relations at the Kelley School, at vlahakis@iu.edu or 812-855-0846.

Inauguration day - Trump's legacy, Biden's priorities

Speaking this morning on BBC radio, Dr McCrisken said: "President Trump’s legacy is being written right now. He’s ending his presidency under such dark clouds - he’s been impeached, there’s going to be a trial in the Senate that could convict him and prevent him from becoming a candidate again for the Presidency, so he’s leaving with lots of controversy – which of course is something that he’s always cultivated to a large extent, he wants to make everything about him. "Even today, by not showing up at the inauguration, by having a separate departure address, by issuing pardons including to his close former adviser Steve Bannon, he’s still cultivating that attention. That’s going to be the biggest Trump legacy - the degree to which he has attempted to shake up American politics – but the normality of American politics continues, we’re going to have a handover of power today through this inauguration, in the way that it always happens, every 4 years and the pendulum will swing again politically back to the Democrats. "There’s lots of pomp and circumstance around the Inauguration but the main moment is at noon, when Joe Biden will take the oath of office to become President of the United States – place his hand on a bible and say the sacred words with the Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding, and then Kamala Harris, very significantly, will also be sworn in as Vice President. She’s the first woman to become VP and the first VP of Black and South Asian heritage. It’s a really significant moment for both of them. "After the swearing in the next significant moment is the Inaugural Address, the first time Joe Biden speaks to the country as President. He’ll try and set the tone for his presidency – we can expect him to seek unity and healing but also assert his policy positions and his approach and set himself apart from the last four years under Trump. "Biden wants to hit the ground running, as soon as all the ceremonies are over today he’s going to be heading up to the White House and he’ll start business as President. One of the first things he’ll do, which a lot of Presidents do when they take office, is issue a series of Executive Orders – these are orders that are given directly by the President to the rest of the Executive Branch to implement policy in particular ways, and he’s going to use these to very quickly overturn some of the things that Trump did, like re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement, changing policies around immigration, changing policies around COVID-19 as well. "But he’s also putting forward some really significant legislative proposals to Congress, he’s seeking a very quick economic stimulus, another 1.9 trillion dollars of COVID relief, and a new immigration policy is in the offing. COVID-19 particularly is the thing he really wants to challenge as quickly as possible and try to turn around the situation in the United States where the virus is still ripping though the country – from his position as President, he’s going to try and get 100 million vaccinations in his first 100 days, that’s what he’s promising. "There’s a lot of challenges here and it’s going to be very difficult for him - particularly being overshadowed perhaps by the impeachment trial – so it will be an interesting few weeks and months ahead at the start of his Presidency." 20 January 2021

Renowned educator and author Gloria Ladson-Billings to present Georgia Southern 2021 Fries Lecture

Gloria Ladson-Billings, Ph.D., renowned pedagogical theorist, teacher educator and author, will present the 2021 Norman Fries Distinguished Lecture, hosted by Georgia Southern University’s College of Education. In her lecture, “Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Educating Past Pandemics,” Ladson-Billings will discuss how pandemics provide opportunities for revisioning and reimagining culturally relevant teaching practices. She suggests that instead of “getting back to normal,” it is time to get on to new and more equitable ways of educating all students and creating a more democratic society. Ladson-Billings is the former Kellner Family Distinguished Professor of Urban Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and faculty affiliate in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She also served as the 2005-06 president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Ladson-Billings’ research examines the pedagogical practices of teachers who are successful with Black students. She also investigates critical race theory applications to education. She is the author of critically acclaimed books The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children and Crossing Over to Canaan: The Journey of New Teachers in Diverse Classrooms, as well as numerous journal articles and book chapters. About Ladson-Billings Former editor of the American Educational Research Journal and a member of several editorial boards, Ladson-Billings’ work has won multiple scholarly awards including the H.I. Romnes Faculty Fellowship, the National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship and the Palmer O. Johnson Outstanding Research Award. She is a 2018 recipient of the AERA Distinguished Research Award and was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2018. About the Norman Fries Distinguished Lectureship series The annual Norman Fries Distinguished Lectureship series began in 2001. It is funded by an endowment in honor of Norman Fries, founder of Claxton Poultry. In his more than 50 years of business, Fries built the company from a one-man operation into one of the largest poultry production plants in the U.S. Past Fries lecturers include David Oreck of Oreck Vacuums, South African apartheid author and lecturer Mark Mathabane, NASA director James W. Kennedy, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Gordon S. Wood, Nobel Prize laureate William D. Phillips, Ph.D., bestselling author Susan Orlean, concussion expert Dr. Russell Gore, and PricewaterhouseCoopers Network chief operating officer Carol Sawdye. The lecture will take place virtually via Zoom on Feb. 8 at 7 p.m. The event is free and open to the public. If you are a journalist looking to know more about the Norman Fries Distinguished Lectureship or would like to interview Gloria Ladson-Billings  -- simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to set and time and date.

Lockdown teleworking impacts productivity of women more than men

When the COVID-19 pandemic led countries all over the world to lock down their economies in early 2020, there was an unprecedented global shift to teleworking in white collar sectors. A trend that had been gathering traction was suddenly and exponentially accelerated and many of the world’s largest corporations, Google and Facebook among them, have announced plans allowing employees to work from home well into 2021 or indefinitely. Remote working not only appears to work, but it appears to have a number of advantages—savings in office maintenance costs and time spent commuting, not to mention enabling organizations to safeguard productivity when there’s a major shock or crisis. But is it all good news? Or good news for all? A new paper by Ruomeng Cui, assistant professor of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, reveals an important drop in the productivity of female academics around the world in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdowns. In fact, in the ten weeks following the initial lockdown in the United States, their productivity fell by a stunning 13.9 percent relative to that of male colleagues. And it’s likely to do with the disproportionate burden of responsibility for household needs and childcare that persistently falls on women, Cui said. “We know that gender inequality persists both in the workplace and at home, and we were curious to see how the lockdown scenario would attenuate or exacerbate the situation for women,” Cui said. Anecdotal evidence from her own field—academia—showed that in the weeks following the stay at home mandate in March, there was an upswing of around 20 to 30 percent of papers submitted to journals. However, the overwhelming majority of these were being authored by men. Intrigued, Cui teamed up with Goizueta doctoral student Hao Ding and Feng Zhu from Harvard Business School to conduct a systematic study of female academics’ productivity and output during this period. “We knew that the lockdown had disrupted life for everyone, including academics. With schools and kindergartens closed and people taking care of work and household obligations at home, we intuited that women would be affected more than men as they are disproportionately burdened with domestic and childcare duties,” Cui said. For female academics this would theoretically be particularly acute, as the critical thinking that goes into research calls for quiet, interruption-free environments. To put this to the test, Cui and her co-authors created a large data set covering all the new social science research papers produced by men and women, across 18 disciplines and submitted to SSRN, a research repository, between December 2018 to May 2019 and then from December 2019 to May 2020. From this set, they were able to extract information on titles, authors’ names, affiliations, and addresses to identify their countries and institutions, as well as faculty pages to distinguish between men and women. In total they collected just under 43,000 papers written by more than 76,000 authors in 25 countries. Looking at the data, Cui and her colleagues were able to compute the total number of papers produced by male and female academics each week and then compare the productivity of both before and after the start of the lockdown. Prior to the pandemic, the 2019 period showed no significant changes in productivity in either gender. But in the 10 weeks following the shock of lockdown, a clear gap emerges between men and women, with female academics’ productivity falling by just under 14 percent in comparison to their male colleagues. Interestingly the effect was more pronounced in top-ranked research universities. This is likely because top schools require faculty to publish research as the primary requisite for promotion, so men would be motivated to continue authoring papers before and after the lockdown. These findings lend solid, empirical clout to the notion that women do take a hit to productivity when care and work time are reorganized, Cui noted. “We see clearly that women are producing less work as a consequence of working from home. In the field of academia, that has huge implications as achieving a permanent position, or tenure, is generally linked to your research output,” she said. “So, there is a serious fairness issue there. If women are producing less because the burden of household responsibility is greater for them than for men, then you’re likely to see fewer female academics get tenure through no fault of their own.” Indeed, one of the other findings of the study shows that while productivity fell, the quality of female-authored research measured by downloads and citations did not. Then there’s the issue of teleworking and gender. With a significant proportion of the world’s white-collar organizations still working from home and unlikely to head back to the office any time soon—and as many schools and childcare facilities remain closed due to the pandemic—Cui is concerned that productivity as a measure of value and a marker of success might mean the odds are further stacked against women. And not just in academia. “We looked at universities in particular, but our findings can really be externalized to any other industry because the underlying issues here are universal. So, with remote working becoming normalized, I think there’s a real onus on organizations of every type to think about how to mitigate these unintended consequences,” she said. “There needs to be more thought about how we measure value or potential of employees.” Cui calls for organizations and institutions to consider these factors when they evaluate male and female workers in the present context and looking to the future. Among the kinds of proactive moves they might consider are to make training programs for male and female employees that explore fairness and encourage a more even distribution of responsibility in the home and for children. “There’s nothing to be gained in prioritizing productivity as a tool for evaluation and just giving women more time, say, to produce as much,” Cui warned. “You’re just left with the same scenario of women doing more than their fair share. Solving this issue is really much more about being aware of it, getting educated about it, and changing your mindset.” If you are a journalist looking to cover this research or speak with Professor Ciu about the subjects of telework and productivity, simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.