Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
New autism and disability training at Aston University aims to close gaps in healthcare
Aston University is leading a national shift in healthcare education with the rollout of Tier 1 of the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training (OMMT) — a pioneering initiative developed by NHS England to improve support for individuals with autism and learning disabilities. Oliver McGowan was an 18-year-old with autism and learning disabilities who died in 2016 after a bad reaction to medication for epileptic seizures, which both he and his parents had requested should not be given after a previous bad reaction. Oliver's death was ruled 'avoidable' and revealed serious gaps in training for medical professionals caring for those with autism and learning difficulties. Oliver's mother Paula set up a foundation to campaign for appropriate training, and in 2022, an UK act of parliament mandated learning disability and autism training for all healthcare staff registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This is now being introduced. The evaluation of the project at Aston University is being led by Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical science, in close collaboration with Dr Mary Drozd, senior teaching fellow in nursing and Dr Jayne Murphy, associate professorial teaching fellow in nursing. Aston is one of the first universities in the UK to implement this training across undergraduate healthcare programmes, including Nursing, Biomedical Science, Pharmacy, Optometry, and Physician Associate Studies. “Our students not only gained new knowledge, but they were vocal about the importance of this training staying in the curriculum permanently,” said Dr. Bashir. Student feedback highlights the transformative impact of the training: “I will use the training to ensure the patient care I provide is accommodating to people with special needs and will offer reasonable adjustments when needed. I understand autism and learning difficulties are not like other disabilities which are commonly physically noticed and that they may me hidden.” “The most useful aspect of the Oliver McGowan training is its focus on real-life experiences shared by individuals with autism and learning disabilities. These personal insights help to contextualise the challenges they face, making the training relatable and impactful.” “It opened my eyes as to how even within people who are practising and have already been working in clinical settings lack the understanding on how to care and approach those with autism and/or learning disabilities. It shouldn’t have got to a stage where what happened with Oliver happened and I am glad I have had this training so that I know what I can do as a healthcare professional in these situations. My previous job as a support worker also helped as I worked with service users who had autism and learning disabilities as well as physical disabilities and so this training assisted the knowledge I had already gained.” Measuring the impact A total of 176 students completed the pre-intervention survey and 94 students completed the survey post-OMMT. Participants were drawn from Nursing, Biomedical Science, Physician Associate Practice, Optometry, and Pharmacy at Aston University. How the training works Tier 1 of the OMMT consists of two parts: a 90-minute e-learning session completed independently, followed by a one-hour live interactive webinar co-facilitated by trained professionals and experts by experience. This format allows for reflective discussion and a deeper understanding of autism and learning disabilities through real-world perspectives. Post-training surveys measured changes in knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. Early results Students showed significantly improved understanding of autism and learning disabilities, as well as greater sensitivity toward tailoring communication to individual needs. The training also identified critical areas for further attention, such as the role of ethnicity in healthcare access and the impact of silent conditions like constipation, which can go undetected and lead to preventable harm. The findings will be presented at the upcoming 'Horizons in STEM' higher education conference, which is being hosted at Aston University, with a manuscript currently in preparation for peer-reviewed publication. By embedding OMMT into its core curricula, Aston University is setting a benchmark for inclusive healthcare education across the UK. To follow this research or explore collaboration on the OMMT initiative, contact: Dr Amreen Bashir – a.bashir6@aston.ac.uk Dr Mary Drozd – m.drozd@aston.ac.uk Dr Jayne Murphy – j.murphy5@aston.ac.uk
New National UMass Amherst Poll Finds President Trump’s Job Approval Gap Slides 6 Points Since April
Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll Public approval of Donald Trump’s presidency has dropped by 6 percentage points since April and his approval rating is now 20 points underwater, 38-58, according to a new national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents conducted July 25-30. “Six months into his second term as president, Donald Trump looks to be on the ropes with the American public,” says Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll. “Trump’s approval ratings, already historically low for a newly elected president, continue to sink with close to 6-in-10 Americans (58%) expressing disapproval of the job that Trump is doing in office. While Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans and conservatives, Trump’s time in office is viewed more negatively across genders, generations, classes and races, with majorities of each of these groups disapproving of Trump’s performance. With over three years left in the Trump administration, there is still time for him to right the ship and fulfil the promises that catapulted him to the presidency, but the president is not off to the start he or his supporters envisioned.” In the previous UMass Poll, conducted as Trump approached the three-month anniversary of his return to the White House, Trump held a 44-51 approval rating, buoyed by a positive overall approval on his handling of immigration. The new poll, however, has found a significant shift in views on this issue. “Immigration has been central Trump’s political campaigns and his strongest issue in his first few months in office, but the percentage of people who say he is handling it well has dropped substantially from 50% four months ago to just 41% today, a 9-point drop,” explains Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Trump came into the presidency promising change, and he’s made significant alterations in many areas of federal policy,” says Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “He came into office believing that he had limited time to make the changes he promised his most ardent supporters, and moved with unparalleled speed to enact these changes, including sometimes by legally questionable means. Now, it seems, he’s reaping the consequences as a large majority of Americans don’t like these changes. Clear majorities say that Trump has handled his key issues – immigration (54%), inflation (63%), jobs (55%) and tariffs (63%) – not very well or not well at all. With so many Americans grading his handling of public policy poorly, it’s no wonder they disapprove of his presidency.” Rhodes also notes that the president is seeing an erosion in support from one of his most reliable groups of supporters: men. “Trump has cultivated a ‘masculine’ reputation and sought to build support among American men but, strikingly, we find that support for Trump has deteriorated most substantially among members of this group,” says Rhodes. “In April, Trump enjoyed approval from 48% of men, compared with 39% of women. Now, only 39% of men express approval of Trump, compared with 35% of women. “In addition to losing support among men, Trump has seen approval for his presidency crumble among political independents, a critical swing constituency,” Rhodes adds. “While 31% of independents approved of his presidency in April, that number is now down 10 percentage points to 21%. This is really bad news for Trump, and for Republicans who depend on support from independents in close elections.” “Polarization has changed the interpretation of presidential approval ratings,” says Alexander Theodoridis, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Partisans just aren’t willing to evaluate presidents from the other side positively and are reluctant to say negative things about presidents from their own party. So, approval numbers fluctuate within a narrower range. Gone are the days when George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush both achieved approval numbers over 90%. This is certainly true for Trump, who is likely the most polarizing figure in modern American politics. Even in this polarized environment, though, Trump’s approval ratings are low by any standard – he is very close to the practical floor. Especially noteworthy is that nearly half of Americans say they strongly disapprove of Trump and the percentage of Americans who say they strongly approve of Trump has decreased substantially. Even among Republican respondents, only half strongly approve of the president. The GOP should be concerned about these numbers heading into the odd-year elections in 2025 and, especially, the midterm elections in 2026. It is very difficult for a party to win when its leader is this unpopular.” Americans’ views on Epstein and Trump Of all issues surveyed in the latest University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll, one appears to be the greatest drag on Trump’s presidency: Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s handling of the evidence gathered in the federal investigation of the accused sex-trafficker and his long-time friend. “The Epstein scandal remains a serious vulnerability – indeed, quite possibly, the most serious vulnerability – for Trump right now,” Rhodes says. “Fully 70% of Americans believe he has handled this issue ‘not too well’ or ‘not well at all,’ and nearly two-thirds (63%) believe his administration is hiding information about Epstein. The Epstein scandal is also likely undermining public confidence in Trump more broadly. Indeed, we find that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that Trump is corrupt and nearly 70% believe he is dishonest. Critically, these numbers mean that many Republicans and conservatives are disappointed with Trump’s handling of the Epstein situation. Republican frustration with Trump’s handling of the Epstein case could erode enthusiasm for his presidency and for Republicans in 2026.” “If Trump and those around him have been wishing the Jeffrey Epstein story would disappear, their wishes have not been granted,” Theodoridis says. “Most Americans (77%) tell us they have heard a lot or some about the Epstein case. In addition to believing that the Trump administration is hiding important Epstein case information, the vast majority of respondents say that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Trump DOJ’s handling of the Epstein case (59%), that Donald Trump was good friends with Epstein (67%), and that a list of Epstein’s clients exists (70%). Even substantial numbers of Trump voters believe these things. And, when it comes to an Epstein ‘cover-up,’ it seems the buck stops with Trump himself. While a lot of Americans blame Attorney General Pam Bondi (59%), FBI Director Kash Patel (49%), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (47%) for hiding information about the Epstein case, a whopping 81% blame President Trump.” “The controversy over the handling of the Epstein files by the Trump administration has – interestingly – brought Americans together,” Nteta adds. “While on most issues, we see clear and persistent generational, class and racial divisions; on Epstein, Americans across these divides speak with one voice. This controversy has even resulted in agreement across partisan lines as majorities of Democrats and Republicans support a special prosecutor and believe a list of clients exists, and disapproval of Trump’s handling of the whole matter is surprisingly seen among members of Trump’s base, as 43% of Republicans and conservatives indicate that Trump has not handled this issue well.” “Where Trump faces his poorest rating in our poll is on perceived corruption and dishonesty,” adds La Raja. “A clear plurality (49%) sees Trump as ‘very dishonest,’ with an additional 20% saying that he is ‘somewhat dishonest.’ And 45% see him as ‘very corrupt,’ with an additional 20% as ‘somewhat corrupt.’ Only about one-third reject those labels entirely. Trump also gets low ratings on transparency – a majority (52%) say Trump is not at all transparent, his weakest score after dishonesty. Only 23% believe that he’s very transparent. For a candidate who brands himself as a truth-teller and disruptor, this appears to be a credibility gap.” “Strength is Trump’s strongest attribute,” La Raja explains. “Fifty-eight percent see him as very or somewhat strong, indicating appeal among his base and possibly swing voters who value ‘toughness.’ However, views on his competence are split evenly, with 52% saying he’s competent to some degree, while 48% say not at all.” Voter Regret? “Since President Trump took office, a number of reports of regretful Trump voters have been covered in the nation’s leading media outlets,” Nteta says. “From voters upset with Trump’s immigration policies to supporters who take issue with the president’s unwillingness to release the files associated with the Epstein case, there seemed to be a wellspring of regret among Trump’s once loyal base. Our results suggest that while there are, in fact, areas where the president is weak, most notably on his handling of the economy and the Epstein controversy. When asked directly, close to 9-in-10 (86%) would vote for Trump again if given the opportunity to revisit their 2024 presidential vote choice. These results indicate that the number of regretful voters covered in the mainstream press may be overblown, as the overwhelming majority of Trump voters remain in the president’s camp.” “Only 1% of Trump voters say they regret their vote and would choose differently, 2% say they ‘might’ choose differently and 3% say they wish they hadn’t voted at all,” Theodoridis says. “When we simply ask voters how they would vote if they could go back and recast their ballot, 6% of Trump voters tell us they would vote for Harris, while only 2% of Harris voters say they would switch to Trump. There is clearly more erosion in support among Trump voters than among Harris voters and, in what is likely small consolation to Harris and her campaign team, significantly more 2024 non-voters who say they wish they had voted indicate they would now cast a vote for the former vice president. In a relatively close election, shifts of these magnitudes might have been decisive, but there are no ‘take-backs’ in electoral politics, so these numbers are best used to inform choices going forward.” “Our results are not wholly positive for President Trump, and there exist areas of concern for his team moving forward,” Nteta warns. “Since April, the number of Trump voters expressing strong confidence in their vote for Trump has declined by 5 percentage points. Additionally, we find small increases in the number of Trump supporters who have mixed feelings about their vote and who indicate that they would ‘rather not have voted.’ Finally, 14% of Trump voters indicate that they would not vote for Trump if given the chance to revisit, while only 8% of Harris voters express a similar sentiment. Time will tell whether the growing number of disaffected Trump voters are the canaries in the coal mine, indicating a larger problem among the Trump coalition and the MAGA movement more generally.” “We do find a meaningful percentage – 31% – of Trump voters unwilling to say they feel very confident they made the right choice,” Theodoridis adds. “Nineteen percent of Trump voters tell us they are still confident but have concerns, and 6% tell us they have mixed feelings about their vote. Given what we know about the psychological predispositions against admitting to having been wrong, these numbers suggest some softening in support for Trump among the very voters who returned him to the White House last November. This should certainly be alarming for Republican politicians. However, for Democrats or journalists looking for a mass mea culpa from Trump voters, our numbers are, perhaps, sobering.” Methodology This University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents nationally was conducted by YouGov July 25-30. YouGov interviewed 1,057 total respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The frame was constructed by stratified sampling from the full 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, region, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2020 and 2024 presidential vote choice as ranked on gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories) and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight. The demographic marginals and their interlockings were based on the sample frame. The marginal distribution of 2020 presidential vote choice and its demographic interlockings were based on a politically representative “modeled frame” of US adults, using the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file, public voter file records, the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration supplements, the 2020 National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll, and the 2020 CES surveys, including demographics and 2020 presidential vote. The marginal distribution of 2024 vote choice was based on official ballot counts compiled by the University of Florida Election Labs and CNN. Demographic interlockings for 2024 vote choice were based on CNN’s 2024 Exit Polls. The margin of error of this poll is 3.5%. Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll
Expert Q&A: Should We Permit AI to Determine Gender and Race from Resumes?
The banner ads on your browser, the route Google maps suggests for you, the song Spotify plays next: algorithms are inescapable in our daily lives. Some of us are already aware of the mechanisms behind a targeted ad or a dating profile that lights up our phone screen. However, few of us may actually stop to consider how this technology plays out in the hiring sector. As with any major technological advancement, it usually takes society (and legislation) a while to catch up and adjust for unintended consequences. Ultimately, algorithms are powerful tools. Like any tool, they have the potential for societal benefit or harm, depending on how they’re wielded. Here to weigh in on the matter is Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management Prasanna Parasurama, who recently joined Emory Goizueta Business School’s faculty in fall of 2023. This interview has been edited for clarity. Describe your research interests in six words. Six words…that’s difficult to do on the spot. How about “the impact of AI and other digital technologies on hiring.” Is that condensed enough? That works! What first interested you in the intersection of AI and hiring practices? Before I did my PhD, I was working as a data scientist in the HR analytics space at a start-up company. That is where my interest in the topic began. But this was a long time ago. People hadn’t started talking much about AI, or algorithmic hiring. The conversation around algorithmic bias and algorithmic fairness picked up steam in the second or third year of my PhD. That had a strong influence on my dissertation focus. And naturally, one of the contexts in which both these matters have large repercussions is in the hiring space. What demographics does your research focus on (gender identity, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, all of the above)? Do you focus on a particular job sector? My research mostly looks at gender and race for two main reasons. First, prior research has typically looked at race and gender, which gives us a better foundation to build on. Second, it’s much easier to measure gender and race based on the data that we have available—from resumes, from hiring data, like what we collect from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They typically collect data on gender and race, and our research requires those really large data sets to draw patterns. They don’t ask for socioeconomic status or have an easy way to quantify that information. That’s not to say those are less important factors, or that no one is looking at them. One of the papers you’re working on examines resumes written by self-identified men and women. It looks at how their resumes differ, and how that influenced their likelihood of being contacted for an interview. So in this paper, we’re essentially looking at how men and women write their resumes differently and if that impacts hiring outcomes. Take resume screening algorithms, for example. One proposed way to reduce bias in these screening algorithms is to remove names from resumes to blind the applicant’s gender to the algorithm. But just removing names does very little, because there are so many other things that serve as proxies to someone’s gender. While our research is focused on people applying to jobs in the tech sector, this is true across occupations. "We find it’s easy to train an algorithm to accurately predict gender, even with names redacted." Prasanna Parasurama What are some of those gendered “tells” on a resume? People write down hobbies and extracurricular activities, and some of those are very gendered. Dancing and ballet tend to denote female applicants; you’re more likely to see something like wrestling for male applicants. Beyond hobbies, which is sort of obvious, is just how people write things, or the language they use. Female applicants tend to use a lot more affective words. Men, on the other hand, use more of what we call agentic words. Can you explain that a little more? In social psychology, social role theory argues that men are stereotyped to be more agentic, whereas women are stereotyped to be more communal, and that their communication styles reflect this. There’s essentially a list of agentic words that researchers have come up with that men use a lot more than women. And women are more likely to use affective words, like “warmly” or “closely,” which have to do with emotions or attitudes. These communication differences between men and women have been demonstrated in social sciences before, which has helped inform our work. But we’re not just relying on social science tools—our conclusions are driven by our own data. If a word is able to predict that an applicant’s resume belongs to a female versus male applicant, then we assign different weights, depending on how accurately it can predict that. So we’re not just operating on theories. Were there any gendered patterns that surprised you? If you were to assign masculinity and femininity to particular words, an algorithm would likely assign “married” to be a feminine term in most contexts. But in this particular case, it’s actually more associated with men. Men are much more likely to use it in resumes, because it signals something different to society than when women use it. "One of the most predictive terms for men was references to parenthood. It’s much easier for men to reference kids than for women to reveal information about their household status. Women face a penalty where men receive a boost." Prasanna Parasurama Studies show that people perceive fathers as being more responsible employees, whereas mothers are regarded as less reliable in the workplace. We haven’t studied this, but I would speculate that if you go on a platform like LinkedIn, men are more likely to disclose details about fatherhood, marriage, and kids than women are. There were some other tidbits that I didn’t see coming, like the fact that women are much less likely to put their addresses on their resume. Can AI predict race from a resume as easily as it can predict gender? There’s surprisingly very little we know on that front. From existing literature outside of algorithmic literature, we know differences exist in terms of race, not just on the employer side, where there might be bias, but we also on the worker side. People of different races search for jobs differently. The question is, how do we take this into account in the algorithm? From a technical standpoint, it should be feasible to do the same thing we do with gender, but it just becomes a little bit harder to predict race in practice. The cues are so variable. Gender is also more universal – no matter where you live, there are probably men and women and people who identify as in between or other. Whereas the concept of race can be very specific in different geographic regions. Racial identities in America are very different from racial identities in India, for instance. And in a place like India, religion matters a lot more than it does in the United States. So this conversation around algorithms and bias will look different across the globe. Beyond screening resumes, how does AI impact people’s access to job opportunities? A lot of hiring platforms and labor market intermediaries such as LinkedIn use AI. Their task is to match workers to these different jobs. There’s so many jobs and so many workers. No one can manually go through each one. So they have to train algorithms based on existing behavior and existing design decisions on the platform to recommend applicants to particular jobs and vice versa. When we talk about algorithmic hiring, it’s not just hiring per se, but spaces like these which dictate what opportunities you’re exposed to. It has a huge impact on who ends up with what job. What impact do you want your research to have in the real world? Do you think that we actually should use algorithms to figure out gender or race? Is it even possible to blind AI to gender or race? Algorithms are here to stay, for better or worse. We need them. When we think about algorithmic hiring, I think people picture an actual robot deciding who to hire. That’s not the case. Algorithms are typically only taking the space of the initial part of hiring. "I think overall, algorithms make our lives better. They can recommend a job to you based on more sophisticated factors than when the job was chronologically posted. There’s also no reason to believe that a human will be less biased than an algorithm." Prasanna Parasurama I think the consensus is that we can’t blind the algorithm to gender or other factors. Instead, we do have to take people’s demographics into account and monitor outcomes to correct for any sort of demonstrable bias. LinkedIn, for example, does a fairly good job publishing research on how they train their algorithms. It’s better to address the problem head on, to take demographic factors into account upfront and make sure that there aren’t drastic differences in outcomes between different demographics. What advice would you give to hopeful job candidates navigating these systems? Years of research have shown that going through a connection or a referral is by far the best way to increase your odds of getting an interview—by a factor of literally 200 to 300 percent. Hiring is still a very personal thing. People typically trust people they know. Prasanna Parasurama is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Prasanna’s research areas include algorithmic hiring, algorithmic bias and fairness, and human-AI interaction. His research leverages a wide array of quantitative methods including econometrics, machine learning, and natural language processing. Prasanna is available to talk about this important and developing topic - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Podcast: Equality must become the norm, not just a box ticking exercise
Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) must become “everybody’s business” EDI can reduce pay gaps and open up opportunities for SMEs Aston University now celebrating Athena Swan Gold award for gender equality. Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) needs to become “the norm” in organisations to escape “disappointing” government criticism that it is a waste of time. That’s the guidance coming from the latest episode of ‘Aston means business’, a podcast from Aston University presented by journalist Steve Dyson. Professor Shivani Sharma, the new deputy dean of people, culture and inclusion at the University’s College of Business and Social Sciences, explained that EDI cultures must become “everybody’s business” to address the existing gender and ethnicity pay gaps. Responding to recent government criticisms of EDI schemes, Professor Sharma said: “Not enough investment has gone into these roles because, if we look at the history, it tells us that just relying on everybody to do the right thing doesn’t work.” Also interviewed in the podcast was Omar Rashid, a director of The HR Dept, a human resources franchise for Birmingham Central & Wolverhampton. Mr Rashid, who specialises in diversity and recruitment, said that government criticism of EDI initiatives was “disappointing”. But he acknowledged: “I understand where they’re coming from because, if it’s seen as a scheme, as something we’ve got to do, and it’s not done properly, then maybe it is a waste of time and a waste of money. It has to be seen as the norm.” He said people need to realise they live in a multicultural world, with a diverse workforce, supply chain and customers, and that if implemented properly the benefits of EDI are there. Mr Rashid, who is also president of the Asian Business Chamber of Commerce in Birmingham, specialises in diversity and recruitment. He added: “There is opportunity there through different skills. “Each individual, whether it’s race, religion, will bring their own perspectives, their own unique skills, even people with a disability. It shouldn’t be seen as a barrier.” He said examples of a “tick box mentality” were where businesses might adopt Black History Month but do nothing for the other 11 months of the year, or provide a prayer room during Ramadan but not at any other time. He added: “When it’s tick box, it’s not worth it because you’ll have a business or someone who will do something for a short period of time. They half-heartedly did something without the conviction. Diversity shouldn’t be just a little bit here and there.” Professor Sharma went on to say that ‘world days’ such as International Women’s Day can act as a catalyst to focus attention on an issue. But she added: “It’s really important that why you’re doing that is clear, and that the strategy of raising awareness, to remove barriers to women, equitable inclusion in the workplace or in society, continues throughout the year.” She said that Aston University had recently gained an Athena Swan Gold award for promoting gender equality in higher education, but that the “scale” of the problem meant there was still lots more to achieve. She explained that proportions of women entering as students into higher education was really positive, as were degree completion rates. But she pointed to the fact that around 80 per cent of university vice chancellors identified as men, with low representations of ethnic minority women among professors. Professor Sharma added: “It will take a sustained effort to undo that over time.” She also praised the Inclusive Aston networking initiative at Aston University, with senior leaders mentoring colleagues of minority ethnic heritage. Mr Rashid said SMEs needed to look at the opportunities that a diverse workforce and culture can bring to their business. He added: “One SME business engaged with someone from an Asian background, wanted to tap into India, and guess what? He has the connections and they were able to open a branch in India.” Catch up on all of the previous ‘Aston means business’ podcast episodes here.
Countdown To the Big Game: Dr. Tyrha’s Top Five Super Bowl Commercials for the Past Five Years
Advertising executive and multicultural media expert Tyrha M. Lindsey-Warren, Ph.D., clinical assistant professor of marketing at Baylor University's Hankamer School of Business, , is a sought-after media commentator on the brands who win big during the game's commercial breaks. Commercials always are the most anticipated and talked-about aspect of the Super Bowl, but the expanding digital landscape requires advertisers to use more authentic and nuanced strategies to reach consumers. Advertising executive and multicultural media expert Tyrha M. Lindsey-Warren, Ph.D., clinical assistant professor of marketing at Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business, is a sought-after media commentator on the brands who win big during the game’s commercial breaks. How do companies break through the noise and make a lasting impression on viewers? Lindsey-Warren – or Dr. Tyrha, as she is known – says the key is empowered storytelling. As a consumer behavior scholar, Dr. Lindsey-Warren’s research is rooted in narrative transportation theory – in other words, storytelling – that exudes the emotion of empowerment and its impact on consumer attitudes, behaviors, purchase intention and message recall. “There is a growing space for cleverly crafted and positive storytelling that can break through the clutter and competition and get the attention of Millennials, Gen Z and Alpha generations in an authentic and meaningful manner,” Lindsey-Warren said. At the top of every year, Dr. Tyrha always enjoys exposing the juniors and seniors in her advertising class to the joys of storytelling in advertising by way of the Super Bowl commercials. By leveraging the Super Bowl as an “edutaining” entry point for student learning, Dr. Lindsey-Warren finds it to be a fun and wonderful way to bring many advertising lessons to life for her students, including branding, consumer targeting and segmentation, social media campaign analysis, and more. To that end, here are Dr. Tyrha Lindsey-Warren’s top picks for the best Super Bowl commercials over the past five years. COUNTDOWN TO THE SUPER BOWL: DR. TYRHA’S TOP 5 SUPER BOWL COMMERCIALS FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS #5: Company/Brand: AMAZON Title of the commercial: “#BeforeAlexa” (With Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi) Year it ran in the Super Bowl: 2020 Link to the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLUwmnPJIGk Ad Agency that produced the commercial: Droga5 Dr. Tyrha’s rationale as to why this ad is so good: In my opinion, this was a wonderfully creative and clever introduction of the Alexa product by Amazon. The nostalgic storytelling in the spot humorously does make you wonder and realize how “did” we all live “before Alexa?” The commercial is multigenerational, incorporates women extremely well, and is so funny! #4. Company/Brand: NFL Title of the commercial: “Bring Down the House!” Year it ran in the Super Bowl: 2022 Link to the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PhfMtZce1k Ad Agency that produced the commercial: Co-directed by Peter Berg of Film 47 and Arthur Mintz of Swaybox Studios Dr. Tyrha’s rationale as to why this ad is so good: In 2022, the NFL creatively leveraged the power of animation to get our attention with this wonderfully told story with children as the lead Talent and set in a situation that all families can relate to! The spot is so much fun and keeps you guessing as well as laughing with Grandma saving the day in the end. The commercial is multigenerational, multicultural, and incorporates women and girls extremely well. #3. Company/Brand: MOUNTAIN DEW & DORITOS (OWNED BY PEPSICO) Title of the commercial: “Doritos Blaze vs. Mountain Dew Ice” (with Morgan Freeman and Peter Dinklage) Year it ran in the Super Bowl: 2018 Link to the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2tyVjEuqcY Ad Agency that produced the commercial: Goodby, Silverstein & Partners Dr. Tyrha’s rationale as to why this ad is so good: The “in your face” storytelling of this commercial – performed exquisitely by acclaimed actors, Peter Dinklage and Morgan Freeman, and accompanied by the perfect voiceover narrators in Rappers Missy Elliot and Busta Rhymes – is so much fun and truly unforgettable! The commercial also cleverly makes you pay attention to the presentation of the products being promoted as well as compels you to wonder as to “when did you last have a Mountain Dew and some Doritos?” This commercial is multicultural, multigenerational, multibodied, and incorporates women well and UBER memorable! #2. Company/Brand: NFL Title of the commercial: “The 100-Year Game” Year it ran in the Super Bowl: 2020 Link to the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjiIuH1VnY Ad Agency that produced the commercial: 72 and Sunny Dr. Tyrha’s rationale as to why this ad is so good: If you love the game of football, you have to love this ad that celebrates the fun and contagious spirit of the game. Truly, this commercial has something for everyone who loves the game of football! The unassuming opening of the ad’s storytelling set at an awards banquet and led by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell quickly evolves into a fun and rambunctious game of football with NFL players of all ages in their tuxedos destroying the ballroom with their play. The musical hip-hop soundtrack alone for the spot is amazing, current, and supports the action of the storytelling extremely well. This spot is multigenerational, incredibly diverse in age ethnicity and more, as well as weaves women and girls into the spot ever so cleverly. A truly memorable ad and so much fun! #1. Company/Brand: Mr. Clean (OWNED BY P&G) Title of the commercial: “Cleaner Of Your Dreams” Year it ran in the Super Bowl: 2018 Link to the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozuWoZITX3Y Ad Agency that produced the commercial: Leo Burnett Dr. Tyrha’s rationale as to why this ad is so good: Every year I show this commercial to my Advertising students at Baylor University and they absolutely LOVE this ad! The storytelling of this commercial leverages the animated Mr. Clean in such a clever manner, while showing the product benefits at the same time, and not being “in your face” with the product’s selling proposition. The music and the dancing accompaniment to the storytelling all help to bring an emotional connection to the viewer, especially the female audience. Plus, the spot is just super funny and so much fun! Every time I see this ad, I want to run and buy Mr. Clean. And, I tell my female students every year that when they get older, they are going to LOVE a man who can clean a house!!!! Additionally, this was an incredibly smart move by P&G to put this ad in the Super Bowl. This is due to the fact that the “current and future market power of women – as a whole and by segments – is undeniable and truly cannot be ignored by marketers, especially the NFL.” Today, women influence more than 80% of all consumer spending; 89% of the financial decisions are made by women; and globally, women control more than $20 trillion in worldwide spending. In addition, nearly 24.3 million African American women are brand loyalists and cultural trendsetters who have influence over the $1.2 trillion in Black spending power. And, Forbes reported in 2018 that “women constituted about 49 % of the 108 million-plus people who watched” that year’s Super Bowl – and they paid closer attention to the ads!
New Policy on BMI Use Will Change How Physicians Approach Diagnoses and Care
The Body Mass Index – or BMI – table was created in the mid-1800s, and for the last several decades has been viewed as the choice tool to diagnose obesity. However, the American Medical Association (AMA) recently issued a policy clarifying the role of BMI after taking a comprehensive look at both its benefits and limitations as a diagnostic tool. In short, the new policy urges physicians to use BMI only in conjunction with other measures of risk and recognizes the historical shortcomings of the oft-used formula. Lisa Diewald, MS, RDN, LDN, is the program manager of the MacDonald Center for Nutrition Education and Research with Villanova’s M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing. She applauds the AMA for embracing a more holistic approach to weight and health in individuals. “This is a huge step forward and I think it will ultimately lead to better health care and an improved practitioner-patient relationship,” Diewald said. To understand why, one must first understand the history of BMI’s use. The formula that spits out the number we have all come to understand as our BMI considers a person’s height and weight. It was developed in the mid-19th century by a Belgian sociologist to measure the socially ideal person. The modern term and application came about in the 1972 and has been a routine measurement ever since because it is easy, fast, costs nothing and in some cases, said Diewald, does correlate with body fat. But in recent years, large scale studies have exposed some of the limitations of the measure, building to the point where they needed to be weighed against the overt benefits. For starters, BMI does not measure body fat – or adiposity – directly. Adiposity, per Diewald, is more closely associated with health risk than BMI. “For this reason, health risk for some individuals with normal BMI but high body fat has been underestimated, and some with high BMI but normal body fat levels have been overestimated,” she said. Nor does it “differentiate between muscle, bone and body fat, or distribution of fat on the body,” Diewald said. “We know that all these factors can influence health and chronic disease risk.” Other comorbidities or chronic conditions that wouldn’t show up on a BMI chart alongside a number in the “normal” range can also impact health. Conversely, there are health conditions that might be incorrectly assumed just because a BMI is high. “Not every person with a high BMI experiences these chronic conditions, so developing a more holistic approach can lead to better assessment, treatment and outcomes,” Diewald said. Another shortfall she pointed out was its failure to factor in gender, race, body composition, ethnicity or physical activity level. Think back to the origins of the chart, intended to be a social standard created in Europe nearly two hundred years ago. “BMI tables were originally designed in the 1800’s using a population of white men,” Diewald said. “Understandably, at one point in time it was all we had to evaluate weight status, but it may not be accurate to use this standard alone with all groups of people.” These societal, gender and racial/ethnic factors led the AMA to explicitly cite “historical harm, use for racist exclusion and because BMI is based primarily on data collected from previous generations of non-Hispanic white populations” in the new policy on its clinical use. Additionally, the policy addressed the differences in body composition across genders, races and ages that were not being considered. There is also an ignored mental component in its use to diagnose obesity, which can lead to avoidance of doctor visits and, in turn, further physical issues. “Obesity is a multifactorial, complex condition and addressing it with individuals needs to be done with empathy and sensitivity, beginning with how it is measured,” Diewald said. “There are numerous factors influencing weight well beyond simply food intake, physical activity level and BMI, so it is important for practitioners to recognize that and communicate this to patients. “It is extremely difficult for people with higher weight to be told that they have a high BMI and simply need to eat less and move more. When BMI is used as the sole indicator of weight status, this can be psychologically damaging. We know that many who have been told to lose weight simply based on a high BMI may avoid going to the doctors for routine medical visits and skip necessary preventive care.” It will not be easy, she said, to move away from a method used for so long that has been ingrained as a part of a routine medical visit, but Diewald thinks utilization of the tool in conjunction with other assessments is the best way put this new policy to practice. She advocates for measures such as “Using BMI as only one of several indicators of chronic disease risk, asking permission to discuss weight and health risk, [and] using shared decision-making between practitioners and patient to determine course of treatment.” Education is also paramount to proper assessment of weight-related health risks. “Education cannot stop with physicians, however,” she said. “I think this provides an excellent launching pad for enhanced collaboration among health professionals such as dietitians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants and others involved in providing care, nutrition counseling and lifestyle modification support to patients… Doing this can better fine tune recommendations for treatment, leading to improved outcomes.”
How Colorism Impacts Professional Achievement
Melissa J. Williams is associate professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She investigates what happens when social identities collide with workplace hierarchies, and the consequences of putting people in positions of power and leadership. Here she looks at something less documented: the extent to which our appearance is stereotypically Black or white. And what that means for our prospects. Rosa Parks made history on December 1, 1955, when she refused to relinquish her bus seat to a white passenger. Her simple gesture of defiance ignited a city-wide bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, and has gone down in the annals as a pivotal moment for the social justice movement in the United States. However, Parks was not the only African American to make a stand against racial segregation. Nor was she the first. In March of the same year in the same city, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin also refused to give up her seat to a white woman on a Montgomery bus. So why isn’t she a household name? In part, Colvin’s age was a factor. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other Black civil rights groups got behind Parks, reasoning that an older woman would be better equipped to withstand the controversy. But as Colvin herself stated, there were other factors at play. There was something about Parks’ appearance that gave her more leverage, reasons Colvin explained in Philip Hoose’s award-winning book on the civil rights movement. She had the “right hair and the right look.” Not only that, but her appearance “was the kind that people associate with the middle class. She fit that profile.” Success isn’t black or white. It’s shades of…white. Colorism has long been documented in the U.S. and elsewhere. Discrimination against human beings on the basis of their facial features, hair, and skin color transcends race—it is prevalent even within groups that share the same ethnic identity, where lighter skin tones are perceived to be more valuable than dark. Research over the years has shed light on the nefarious effects of colorism or shadeism in terms of equity and access to opportunity. But a new landmark study by Associate Professor of Organization & Management Melissa Williams, and Goizueta colleagues, PhD student Tosen Nwadei and Roberto C. Goizueta Chair of Organization & Management Anand Swaminathan, looks at just how Black or white someone appears—and how this shapes the way others see their potential; as well as the kinds of professional outcomes they can expect. What Williams and her co-authors, who also include James B. Wade from George Washington University and C. Keith Harrison and Scott Bukstein of University of Central Florida, find in their studies, is that Black professionals are less likely to be promoted to leadership roles. What’s more, for Black professionals whose physical appearance is more Black-stereotypical, their chances drop from 12 percent to a mere seven percent. For white professionals, on the other hand, having a more white-stereotypical appearance is an advantage for leadership – looking more stereotypical as a white person increased their chances of holding a leadership role from 32 percent to 43 percent. Williams and colleagues ran both an archival study and a lab experiment with volunteers to discover the extent to which degrees of ethnicity in appearance influence perceptions of a person’s potential for leadership and actually predict their likelihood of success in an industry. While the science unequivocally shows that white people enjoy advantages over Black people in opportunity and outcome across the board, Williams et al. were also interested in exploring what she calls the “continuum of race:” the more nuanced racial characteristics and differences that shape how the world sees us. There’s an assumption that everyone within the same ethnic group—Black or white—will experience the same degree of bias and prejudice, or acceptance and success. And we wanted to push back on that idea to really explore how degrees of whiteness or Blackness play out in people’s minds and shape how they read you physically. -Associate Professor of Organization & Management Melissa Williams Previous research shows the link between persisting in STEM-based majors in college and how much students are perceived to look “like their race,” she says. Those who are perceived to look less typically Black tend to make more friends outside their ethnic group—a boundary-crossing behavior that can help drive careers. To test these ideas, Williams and co-authors ran two studies. First, they accessed publicly available data including photographs, professional background, and positions from one large industry within the U.S.: American college football. College football is really rich in data. You can access job titles, photos, leadership, and non-leadership roles; and you can separate individuals out into head coaches and position coaches who have overseeing roles but who are not leaders per se. Separately, Williams et al. recruited a group of volunteers to look at the images of the football coaches: a mix of Black and white head and position coaches. These volunteers were asked to rate how typical they perceived each individual’s appearance to be of European or white Americans, or of Black Americans, ascribing each person a score out of five based on features such as their skin color, hair, eyes, nose, cheeks, and lips. These scores were then regressed—or cross-referenced—with the position held by the individuals in the photos to determine the relationship between their racial stereotypicality and their leadership role. Crunching the numbers, Williams found a direct correlation between the degree of perceived whiteness or Blackness of the coaches and how likely they actually were to be successful leaders. “We do find a kind of consensus in people’s view of what it means to be Black or white straight off,” says Williams. “So we do all seem to agree on the physical attributes of race. But it gets really interesting when you regress the scores that these photos get and compare them with the actual jobs these guys hold.” What we see is that, controlling for their age, attractiveness, and professional experience, the white guys who look less stereotypically white are 32 percent likely to occupy leadership roles. This rises to 43 percent with the men who look more like a stereotypical white guy. For Black professionals, the inverse is true, she notes. The more typically Black an individual looks, the less probability there is that he occupies a leadership job. Specifically, that figure drops from 12 to seven percent. So benchmark leadership probability is not only already lower for Black individuals, but drops even further when people are deemed to look “more typically Black,” says Williams. A follow-up experiment invited volunteer football fans to compare how they saw the potential future success of two same-race college football players—one more stereotypical in appearance than the other. The results confirm what Williams et al. suspect: 70 percent of the time, participants chose the more-typical white individual over the less-typical white individual as having greater leadership potential. In other words, the more white a white person looks, the more they are seen as leadership material. These findings should translate into an imperative, says Williams; and that is to think more broadly about race and how it impacts life outcomes. Because race is not a uniform experience, she says. “Organizations might want to look beyond just ticking the box when it comes to diversity and inclusion, and give deeper thought to who they want to recruit, support and push forward in representation. For white people, paying attention to whiteness—the types of white people who enjoy advantages in leadership—can be useful in reframing certain questions. A good place to start might be for leaders to ask: do I want to support people who look like me? Because the face you choose can ultimately help disrupt, or reinforce, the stereotype.” Interested in learning more or connecting with Melissa J. Williams, associate professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School? She's available to speak about this subject - Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Combating Hate Speech in 2023 (and Beyond)
The arrival of a new year often initiates a reflection on the previous one. And according to Billie Murray, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Communication, reflecting on America’s past begins with acknowledging the country’s history of and ever-growing propensity towards hate speech. As defined by Dr. Murray in her book Combating Hate: A Framework for Direct Action, hate speech “defames, denigrates, dehumanizes and/or inspires violence against particular groups of people on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, gender or other identity category.” Hateful rhetoric is not restricted to the fringes of society as it once might have been. It is emerging within schools, localities and central government. Yet, as Dr. Murray points out, America’s enmeshment is not fated. Dr. Murray’s commitment to fieldwork has taken her throughout the country to protests at hate group rallies in Stone Mountain and Newnan, Georgia, Columbia, South Carolina, and Washington, D.C. At these rallies, and through the lens of a researcher, scholar and activist, Dr. Murray sought to identify oppositional tactics used by counter-protestors that succeeded in diminishing the presence and the effects of hate speech. As a result of her observations, Dr. Murray devised the Counterspeech System, a strategy based on the idea that more speech (not avoidance) is the best way to counter hate speech. And there are two successful ways of doing just that: Confrontational Tactics focus on combating hate through direct action. For example, ‘Angel Action’ is a term used for a confrontational tactic employed at funerals in which activists dress in white angel costumes, rising seven feet tall with ten-foot wing spans, to form a shield with their bodies while creating a barrier between mourners and hate groups. For non-funeral occasions, counteractive celebratory events such as public dance parties, pride celebrations and noise brigades (the drowning out of hate speech with things like kazoos or brass bands) aim to quell hate with love. Persuasive-Dialogic Tactics focus on both public and interpersonal discussions. For example, persuadable members of the general public may receive the message that hate is a problem (through media campaigns and education) and thus come to the conclusion that action must be taken to combat it. Additionally, an interpersonal dialogue with individual members of a hate group in which messaging about compassion, human dignity and mutual respect is initiated can lead to self-reflection and the use of resources such as de-radicalization support groups (like Life After Hate). It is important to acknowledge that although successful, Counterspeech System tactics do not prevent hate groups from organizing or disseminating information. More speech serves to combat existing hateful rhetoric. “Our country needs a shift in how it understands free speech and the role of police protection of hate groups, especially if we are going to continue to win this fight,” says Dr. Murray. It will take federal action coupled with a coalition of those engaging in oppositional tactics to bring about lasting change. However, despite the challenges, Dr. Murray affirms that combating hate speech is worth the fight.
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.
ChristianaCare also ranks as No. 2 overall health care employer nationwide for diversity and inclusion, No. 40 overall For the second consecutive year, Forbes magazine has ranked ChristianaCare as one of the best employers for diversity and inclusion in the United States in its list of Best Employers for Diversity 2022. ChristianaCare ranked as the No. 2 employer for diversity and inclusion in the health care industry and the No. 40 employer in the nation overall. “Through purposeful actions, we commit to valuing diversity and fostering an environment for inclusion as we support all caregivers and serve all our neighbors with love and excellence, in our actions and in our words,” said Neil Jasani, M.D., MBA, FACEP, chief people officer at ChristianaCare. “We know when we support our caregivers and they can be their authentic selves, they will be exceptional today and even better tomorrow.” ChristianaCare, Delaware’s largest private employer, has committed to being an anti-racism organization and works to ensure that commitment is reflected through the organization’s policies, programs, and practices. (Read more about ChristianaCare’s anti-racism commitment here.) All employees of ChristianaCare are referred to as caregivers, whether they provide direct patient care or support that care indirectly. ChristianaCare’s inclusion efforts include 10 employee resource groups, which connect caregivers who have a common interest or bond with one another. Formed by employees across all demographics – such as disability, gender, race, military status, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. – these voluntary grassroots groups work to improve inclusion and diversity at ChristianaCare. More than 1,100 caregivers at ChristianaCare participate in employee resource groups. ChristianaCare also has developed LeadershipDNA, a leadership development program that is specifically targeted to underrepresented, diverse populations early in their leadership journey within the organization and is designed to foster professional and career development. ChristianaCare President and CEO Janice E. Nevin, M.D., MPH, has signed the CEO Act!on for Diversity & Inclusion Pledge, which outlines a specific set of actions the signatory CEOs will take to cultivate a trusting environment where all ideas are welcomed, and employees feel comfortable and empowered to have discussions about diversity and inclusion. More than 1,600 of ChristianaCare’s caregivers have also signed the pledge. “This recognition shows that we are making progress in our commitment to invest in our caregivers and to make all who join us feel included,” said Pamela Ridgeway, chief diversity officer and vice president of talent at ChristianaCare. “Taking care of people is what we do, and our ability to help people achieve optimal health is tied directly to how successful we are at embracing diversity and creating an inclusive environment for our caregivers.” Forbes’ Best Employers for Diversity were identified from an independent survey of more than 60,000 U.S. employees working for companies employing at least 1,000 people in their U.S. operations. Respondents were asked to rate their organizations on criteria such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation equality, as well as general diversity. More than 10,000 companies were reviewed and approximately 2,000 were given a diversity score that is derived from employee surveys and publicly available information. The final list ranks the 500 employers that not only received the most recommendations, but also have the most diverse boards and executive leadership, and the most proactive diversity and inclusion initiatives.
