Experts Matter. Find Yours.

October is Disability Awareness Month - contact a UMW expert if you are covering

One in four Americans lives with a disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the University of Mary Washington, it’s one in eight. “With those sorts of numbers, it’s mind-boggling [that] disability doesn’t have more automatic inclusion when people think about diversity,” said UMW Professor of English Chris Foss. As the Americans with Disabilities Act’s 30th year and October’s Disability Awareness Month shine a light on one of the country’s most underrepresented groups, so does a new UMW course. Offered for the first time this fall, Intro to Disability Studies (IDS) delves into the 21st-century experience of a diverse population, exploring cognitive, sensory, mobility and other differences as just as essential to the human condition as gender and race. The 16-week course fans out across disciplines, examining disability throughout the lifespan in historical, political, social and other contexts. Years in the making, the class is team-taught by faculty and staff – from art history, education, English, historic preservation, psychology and the Office of Disability Resources (ODR) – who’ve poured their time and passion into the topic in hopes it gains traction. “It took a lot of meetings, discussion and work on Google Docs to pull this together,” said Professor of Art History Julia DeLancey, who borrows from her first-year seminar, “The Beauty Difference Gives Us,” to deliver an IDS session on how disabilities affect artists’ work. If you are a journalist looking to cover Disability Awareness Month and the Americans with Disabilities Act’s 30th year, then let the experts from the University of Mary Washington help with your story. Dr. Julia DeLancey and Dr. Chris Foss are available to speak with media about this important topic – simply click on either icon to arrange an interview today.

When to hold the party line and when to flee a sinking ship – let our experts explain how down-the-ballot voting is playing part in this year’s election

With America less than two weeks away from one of its most unique and divisive elections in the country’s history – and as the polls tighten and the outcome seems to be coming a little more clear from the fog of a long campaign, some might be getting a little worried. The November 3rd outcome is far from determined, especially if anyone wants to think back four years when President Trump was a candidate that was expected to be routed by Hillary Clinton. But as Joe Biden’s campaign is showing strength in traditional Republican strongholds, the idea of voting down the ballot and the ripple effects of voter change has representatives from both the Senate and House of Representatives concerned. If the presidency is to be lost, holding power and keeping a strong presence in both houses is still a priority. Getting re-elected and staying employed is also an important factor for members of Congress and sitting Senators. The following few days may be a crucial time for a lot of candidates seeking election in traditional ‘red’ states to start thinking for themselves and even distancing their platforms and profiles away from the campaign for the White House. It’s not as easy as it may seem. And that’s where a political expert can assist when examining a few of the important angles: What consequences and risks are there for candidates who abandon the party line? Where is it happening now and who is most vulnerable? Is down-the-ballot voting really an issue or just more of a myth made up for media covering an already long election? If you are a journalist looking to cover this election trend or any other topic leading up to Election Day – then let our experts help. Dr. Rosalyn Cooperman, associate professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington and member of Gender Watch 2018, is an expert on women in politics. She is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.

With debating done – what left in the last week of the 2020 presidential election campaign?

The road to the White House and the long and winding road of the 2020 presidential election campaign is finally coming to an end. With three debates schedules – one raucous, one canceled and the final one well moderated and with bad behavior reigned in by muted microphones, all that is left is getting out the vote and the final push to sway undecideds. This year, and the election race that took place during it, was like no other – and though voters and the American people can now see the light at the end of the tunnel, there’s still a lot to watch for as November 3rd approaches. And that’s where our experts can help if you are covering. The University of Mary Washington has one of the foremost political experts in the country who can help with your stories. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on presidential politics. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. Stephen is available to speak with media any time regarding the election – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

Cheap Energy Can Be a Bridging Fuel Needed to Get to the Endpoint of Renewable Energy Sooner

Far from banning fracking, the Biden/Harris ticket appears to be allowing it if not tacitly supporting it. This is not a contradictory stance to their aggressive renewable energy policy, according to Scott Jackson, a visiting professor of chemical and biological engineering at Villanova University's College of Engineering, who previously directed the microbial enhanced oil recovery program at DuPont Corporation. "Rather, it is recognition that cheap energy—especially natural gas produced as a result of fracking—can be a bridging fuel needed to get to the end point of renewable energy sooner," Jackson says. No one can dispute that the share of our energy coming from less efficient/more polluting coal has dropped dramatically despite the current administration’s attempts at supporting the coal industry. The reason is obvious—cleaner burning energy (less CO2 emissions) from gas fired turbine generators make more economic sense. Gas fired turbine generators are economical at a smaller scale and provides an energy source that can be rapidly turned on or off at any time. This helps to counterbalance the intermittency of renewable energy and, in some sense; this has allowed greater adoption of renewable energy. The cheapest energy source on the planet is land based wind power. The market has responded to this and now renewables make up 19 percent of our electricity. This percentage was thought to be impossible just a few years ago. Wind power energy payback time (time needed to recoup the energy invested) is measured in months and not years, and investors understand this. A much greater share of renewables (wind and solar) is very doable and makes economic sense. Jackson notes that development of cheap energy storage technology will help and must be implemented once economies of scale are achieved, however, a national power grid capable of moving energy from the wind- and sun-rich Midwest to the West Coast and East Coast will improve the reliability of renewables to the point where as much as 70% of our electricity can be sourced renewably—without new storage capacity (2018 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Improvements in battery technologies and economy of scale are starting to drive down the costs of electric transportation and storage. Eventually, natural gas sourced power generation will not be competitive to renewables," notes Jackson. "Despite the current low price of gasoline, in part as a result of fracking used in oil fields, electric cars are far more economical to operate. Companies like BP, Exxon-Mobile and Shell recognize that they are energy companies and are pivoting to more renewable sources of energy. "Ultimately, our government has a responsibility to invest in the technologies of the future that make economic sense—as renewables do—and not support the more costly and outdated fossil fuel industry," says Jackson.

Covering CRISPR, gene editing – and what it might mean for generations to come? Our experts can help

The two scientists who took the concept of gene editing to the forefront were recently rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in Chemistry. The efforts of scientists Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna and the development of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats have taken a vaguely titled idea named CRISPR into the modern conversation. Since then, this process has transcended itself into medicine, agriculture and a host of other scientific applications being used around the world today. There is a lot to know about CRISPR: How does it work, what are the risks and what are the potential rewards that have yet to be discovered? There is also a lot of concern about how gene editing could transform life and future life as we know it. If you are a journalist looking to know more about CRISPR, Augusta University has the expert you need for your questions and coverage. Dr. Paul Langridge is an acclaimed scientist specializing in morphogenesis, CRISPR, signal transduction, and cell and molecular biology. He is an expert when it comes to the topics of gene editing and has used the same technologies that the Nobel winners also used in their research. Langridge is available to speak with any reporters looking to cover this topic; simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

More than just money – what corporate America needs to do to motivate today’s workforce

In a modern workplace no longer characterized by rigid hierarchies and where power is more diffused, traditional methods of motivation may no longer be enough. We have come to understand the value of providing people with ‘intrinsic motivation’ – a sense of purpose, the importance of creative, interesting work, and maintaining work-life balance. We have naturally moved away from a sole dependence on monetary incentives. However, in a New York Times opinion piece, management author Alfie Kohn asserts that “science has confirmed” that monetary rewards amount to “bribes” that don’t work. Somehow this doesn’t ring true. Has science really confirmed this? Would businesses continue to incentivize performance with monetary rewards if they did not work? And aren’t we all, at least to some extent, motivated by money? To understand if Kohn is right, or if there is a more nuanced answer, Karen Sedatole, Professor of Accounting at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says we need to look at patterns of human behavior. The classical economic theory, which gave us ‘homo economicus,’ assumes people always behave in a rational way and, as with Gordon Gekko in the ‘Wall Street’ movies, selfishness predominates. Findings from psychology and particularly behavioral economics have started to show this to be incorrect. In fact, people tend to make illogical choices contrary to self-interest. Our capacity to think – via a mix of deep reflective thinking and rapid automatic thinking – can lead us to what economists might consider to be irrational behaviors – albeit with the cognitive biases behind our thinking staying mostly predictable. Do monetary incentives work? We all value money, but our perception of its value is influenced by the importance that we also place on reciprocity and fairness, social norms, trust, and trustworthiness. When it comes to monetary rewards for performance the results will also greatly depend on the quality of the performance measures, along with the type of task being rewarded, and the type of reward. Contrary to Kohn’s assertion, Sedatole points out there are many real-world examples that show monetary incentives can deliver big performance and productivity improvements. In fact, if uncontrolled, bonus incentives can be too powerful a motivator, causing damage – as the UK’s PPI and the Wells Fargo mis-selling scandals both firmly attest. There is also strong academic evidence that monetary rewards can have a positive effect, and equally strong evidence that, when over-used, they can elicit bad behavior. Based on relevant academic research in this area, Sedatole identifies four core principles for the use of monetary incentives: Payment for performance can certainly lead to people making a greater effort than when they are rewarded by salary alone, but only if these core principles are followed: 1. Performance targets – Performance targets should be difficult to hit but not too difficult. 2. Performance metrics – The way performance is measured should be sensitive to the employees’ perceptions and sense of control. Employees should believe that their increased effort improves performance, improved performance leads to greater reward, and reward is valued. Metrics must be precise and not prejudiced by external factors. And, from the organization’s perspective, metrics should be set to meet its objectives. 3. Fairness and social norms – Monetary rewards must be seen to be fair and to comply across organizations. They should also conform to social norms. 4. Characteristics of the task – The efficacy of monetary incentives can depend on the nature of the task and to what extent the task provides intrinsic incentives. Here Alfie Kohn has a point; in some cases, monetary rewards tend to undermine intrinsic incentives. ‘Boring’ tasks have little or no intrinsic motivation, whereas creative tasks – the work of a physician, designer, scientist, etc. – are intrinsically motivating. Where there is intrinsic motivation money can be less relevant and in extreme cases can be seen to devalue the intrinsic factors. Professor Sedatole’s recent webinar: ‘Irrational but Predictable! When to Use Monetary Incentives to Motivate Employees’ explains her findings in further details: simply visit it to view and watch for here: If you are journalist covering this topic – Professor Sedatole is available to speak with reporters – simply click on her icon today to arrange an interview.

Why do extroverts seem to always get that much more when it comes to career advancement? Our experts can explain.

People with outgoing personalities get noticed. Heads turn toward those with charismatic voices, emotional speech, high energy, empathetic gestures, and engaging smiles, but on the corporate front, how do these traits come to bear on executive compensation, hiring, and firm outcomes? “The short answer is that extraversion is associated with positive career and firm outcomes,” said T. Clifton Green, professor of finance at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, whose published work Executive Extraversion: Career Firm and Outcomes (The Accounting Review, 2019), explores this phenomenon. The study, with coauthors Russell Jame 10PhD, University of Kentucky’s Gatton College of Business and Economics, and Brandon Lock 12BBA Baruch College’s Zicklin School of Business, City University of New York, highlights the role of personality traits in explaining executive promotions, job tenure, and outside board service. Green also finds evidence that having an extraverted CEO bodes well for investor recognition, sales growth, and acquisitions. The study goes on to explain the personality trait of Extraversion, which is often described as “the single most important aspect of an individual’s personality,” according to Green, with the other of the Big Five traits being Agreeableness, Openness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness. Extraverts tend to be outgoing and gain energy from being around others, whereas introverts tend to be more reserved and recharge through solitude. Psychology research identifies extraversion as the personality trait most closely associated with leadership emergence. The study linked above is available for reading – and if you are a journalist looking to learn more or cover this very interesting topic, then let our experts help. T. Clifton Green is a Professor of Finance at the Goizueta Business School. He is an expert in the areas of market microstructure, with an emphasis on behavioral finance and his research has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Financial Times, and on CNBC.

IU Kelley School of Business research finds that blue-light glasses improve sleep and workday productivity.

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- During the pandemic, the amount of screen time for many people working and learning from home as well as binge-watching TV has sharply increased. New research finds that wearing blue-light glasses just before sleeping can lead to a better night's sleep and contribute to a better day's work to follow. "We found that wearing blue-light-filtering glasses is an effective intervention to improve sleep, work engagement, task performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and reduced counterproductive work behavior," said Cristiano L. Guarana, assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. "Wearing blue-light-filtering glasses creates a form of physiologic darkness, thus improving both sleep quantity and quality." Most of the technology we commonly use -- such as computer screens, smartphones and tablets -- emits blue light, which past research has found can disrupt sleep. Workers have become more dependent on these devices, especially as we navigate remote work and school during the coronavirus pandemic. The media have recently reported on the benefits of blue-light glasses for those spending a lot of time in front of a computer screen. This new research extends understanding of the circadian rhythm, a natural, internal process that regulates the sleep-wake cycle and repeats roughly every 24 hours. "In general, the effects of wearing blue-light-filtering glasses were stronger for 'night owls' than for 'morning larks,' said Guarana, who previously has studied how lack of sleep affects business decisions, relationships and other behaviors in organizations. "Owls tend to have sleep periods later in the day, whereas larks tend to have sleep periods early in the day. "Although most of us can benefit from reducing our exposure to blue light, owl employees seem to benefit more because they encounter greater misalignments between their internal clock and the externally controlled work time. Our model highlights how and when wearing blue-light-filtering glasses can help employees to live and work better." The findings appear in the paper, "The Effects of Blue-Light Filtration on Sleep and Work Outcomes," published online by the Journal of Applied Psychology. Guarana is the corresponding author; his co-authors are Christopher Barnes and Wei Jee Ong of the University of Washington. The research found that daily engagement and performance of tasks may be related to more underlying biological processes such as the circadian process. "Our research pushes the chronotype literature to consider the relationship between the timing of circadian processes and employees' performance," the researchers wrote. A good night's sleep not only benefits workers; it also helps their employers' bottom lines. "This study provides evidence of a very cost-effective means of improving employee sleep and work outcomes, and the implied return on investment is gigantic," said Barnes, professor of management and the Evert McCabe Endowed Fellow at the University of Washington's Foster School of Business. "I personally do not know of any other interventions that would be that powerful at that low of a cost." Across two studies, researcher collected data from 63 company managers and 67 call center representatives at Brazil-based offices for a U.S. multinational financial firm and measured task performance from clients. Participants were randomly chosen to test glasses that filtered blue light or those that were placebo glasses. "Employees are often required to work early mornings, which may lead to a misalignment between their internal clock and the externally controlled work time," the researchers said, adding that their analyses showed a general pattern that blue-light filtration can have a cumulative effect on key performance variables, at least in the short term. "Blue-light exposure should also be of concern to organizations," Guarana said. "The ubiquity of the phenomenon suggests that control of blue-light exposure may be a viable first step for organizations to protect the circadian cycles of their employees from disruption." Researchers received no financial support or compensation for this research. The glasses were donated by the Austin, Texas-based company Swanwick.

Upstream or downstream thinking? What’s the best way for suppliers to go mainstream and reach the most customers?

You might have heard of the beer distribution game. The idea is that a group of participants enact a four-stage supply chain scenario. Some take on the role of those at the point of origin in the supply chain – the upstream agents: manufacturers and distributors. Others role-play the downstream agents at the other end of the chain – the distributors and end-customers: in this case, let’s say the bar owners and beer drinkers. The goal is simple. All you have to do is produce, deliver and sell the beer to your customers, while keeping your costs on back orders and inventory to a minimum. This should be easy enough, in theory. The basic rules of economics suggest that customer demand dictates supply. In practice, however, things can get a little skewed. And this disconnect can happen fast. For a start, players have limited information. They can only see what’s in front of them – bits of paper with order numbers. And as they start to share this information with each other, all kinds of coordination issues arise. Things start to go wrong. Customer demand for X or Y kegs of beer is imperfectly relayed to the bar owner retailer, who in turn passes it on the other players upstream, but makes mistakes in doing so. The result is a kind of Chinese Whispers where confusion reigns, poor decisions are made about stock, too much or too little beer is manufactured or supplied. You end up with increased costs in the supply chain, and, not to mention thirsty beer drinkers. The beer game is just that – a game. But it represents a problem that is all too familiar to suppliers in most industries and sectors. It’s called the Bullwhip effect, and it’s a conundrum. “The Bullwhip effect is a real challenge for suppliers in every industry,” said Nikolay Osadchiy, associate professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Goizueta Business School. “Because demand information gets distorted along the chain, suppliers can see a lot of volatility at their end which can translate into more inventory and drives up costs. It’s a really pressing issue that needs to be addressed.” Osadchiy and his colleagues Bill Schmidt from Cornell University and Jing Wu from the Chinese University of Hong Kong got to work researching the idea. First, they modeled a supply network based on 15 years of data from publicly traded companies across the globe. Second, they determined the ‘upstreamness’ that different firms had – or the positions they occupy – within that network. And third, they examined the demand distortion within each firm and measured demand variability across the different layers of the network to determine how they affect each other. The results of their work were all captured in the article attached below – the information was quite compelling and will greatly assist businesses as they plan their way through and after a globe-shifting event like COVID-19. It’s interesting material for sure – and if you are a journalist looking to know more about supply chains and how businesses will need to adapt in order to survive post-pandemic, then let our experts help with your questions and coverage. Nikolay Osadchiy is an Associate Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University's Goizueta Business School. He is an acclaimed expert in the areas of supply chain management and how supply networks affect risk and operational performance. Nikolay is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

Is sitting safely in the middle – the best place for small business owners to be in times of protest and political quarry?

As the persistent turmoil of protests grips America on an almost daily basis, people are becoming more aware of issues, getting engaged and taking sides. Be it around the dinner table debating, marching in the streets or even arguing on a national news panel – topics like Black Lives Matter, masks during COVID, the upcoming election or a host of other hot-topic issues are all part of the American conversation these days. It’s easy and even healthy for people to debate the issues – but for a business to pick a side on a controversial topic, it’s a much different picture. One recent example was Nike’s support of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. However, Nike also had the resources to bolster their support. They had a multi-million-dollar ad budget, a public relations machine generating hours of earned media – and the company was, for the most part playing to its core audience. Though there was push-back, Nike was rewarded with increased sales and its stock surged. For almost a decade now, Chick-fil-A has also boldly taken a stance with its opinion on gay marriage. The restaurant chain has faced mountains of negative press and protests, but the fast-food giant’s bottom lined never suffered. It still sees sales over 10 billion a year. For Nike and Chik-Fil-A and their deep pockets to wade into the fray with an opinion – it’s one thing, but for a small business to share how it feels, there’s a matter of weighing risk versus reward no matter how important the topic might be. “It may well be that it’s harder for entrepreneurs to create a viable business model for their venture in a more polarized context, says Giacomo Negro, a Professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. “If your business is more hybrid—if you’re supportive of a cause without being overtly affiliated with it—then it could be harder to engage other customers or clients who are uncomfortable doing business with a firm that is even vaguely linked to a specific social group or movement. Similarly, the core supporters of the cause can look at the same organization as not authentically engaged with them.” His findings certainly suggest that existing in a “gray zone,” where you take neither one side or the other, is a hard place for organizations to thrive in times of social change. “If protest activates the cultural boundary surrounding a group’s identity, then increasing protest participation will threaten the viability of precisely those organizations trying to engage inside and outside audiences,” Negro said. “At the same time, bridging inside and outside audiences also conveys a confusing identity and a more limited commitment to pursuing goals relevant to either audience.” With a global pandemic impacting all aspects of national and local economies – small businesses are under pressure to sustain and survive like never before. And if you are a journalist looking to cover the state of small businesses in America and whether or not small business has a role to play in protests and politics in America – then let our experts help with your coverage. Giacomo Negro is a Professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School and is an expert in the area of economic sociology. His resent research study research study, “Which Side Are You On? The Divergent Effects of Protest Participation on Organizations Affiliated with Identity Groups’ focuses on this very subject. Professor Negro is available to speak with media about this topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.