Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Squid Game: why you shouldn’t be too hard on translators

By David Orrego-Carmona Squid Game has recently become Netflix’s biggest debut ever, but the show has sparked controversy due to its English subtitles. This occurred after a Korean-speaking viewer took to Twitter and TikTok to criticise the subtitles for providing a “botched” translation, claiming: “If you don’t understand Korean you didn’t really watch the same show.” Only this year, Squid Game, Lupin, and Money Heist – all non-English originals – have consistently been at the top of Netflix’s most-watched shows globally. This growing popularity of productions in languages other than English and streaming platforms investing more in them has led to an increase in the visibility of the work of translators. When it comes to translating films and series, subtitling and dubbing are the most common forms of translation. Subtitles show the dialogue translated into text displayed at the bottom of the screen; while in dubbing, the original voices of the characters are replaced with voices in a new language. Translation is not new to viewers, but the instant, almost frictionless access to different language versions of the same film or show definitely is. Streaming platforms allow viewers to swiftly change from watching a film with subtitles to listening to the dubbed version or the original. This creates an opportunity for viewers to compare the different versions. Why do originals and translations differ? Just because the translation doesn’t say exactly the same as the original, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Films and TV series are packed with cultural references, wordplay and jokes that require changes and adaptation to make sure what’s said and seen on screen makes sense across languages. Making allowances and adapting what’s said are common practices in translation because, otherwise, the translators would need to include detailed notes to explain cultural differences. Consider the representations of washoku (traditional Japanese cuisine) which are so beautifully embedded in Studio Ghibli films. While additional explanations about the significance of harmony, kinship and care represented in the bowls of ramen in Ponyo or the soft steaming red bean buns in Spirited Away could be interesting, they might get in the way of a viewer who just wants to enjoy the production. Professional translators analyse the source content, understand the context, and consider the needs of the variety of viewers who will be watching. They then look for translation solutions that create an immersive experience for viewers who cannot fully access the original. Translators, similarly to screenwriters and filmmakers, need to make sure they provide good, engaging storytelling; sometimes that implies compromises. For instance, some original dialogue from season two of Money Heist uses the expression “somanta de hostias”. Literally, “hostia” means host – as in the sacramental bread which is taken during communion at a church service. But it is also Spanish religious slang used as an expletive. Original: Alberto, como baje del coche, te voy a dar una somanta de hostias que no te vas ni a mantener en pie. Literal translation: Alberto, if I get out the car, I’m going to give you such a hell (hostia) of a beating that you won’t be able to stay on your feet. Dubbed version: If I have to get out of the car, I’m gonna beat you so hard you don’t know what day it is. Subtitles: Alberto, if I get out of the car, I’ll beat you senseless. The dubbed version of the dialogue adopts the English expression “to beat someone”. The subtitled version uses the same expression but offers a shorter sentence. The difference between the two renderings reflects the constraints of each form of translation. In dubbing, if the lip movements don’t match the sound, viewers often feel disconnected from the content. Equally, if subtitles are too wordy or poorly timed, viewers could become frustrated when reading them. Dubbing needs to match the duration of the original dialogue, follow the same delivery to fit the gesticulations of the characters, and adjust to the lip movements of the actors on the screen. Subtitles, on the other hand, need to be read quickly to keep up with the pace of the film. We talk faster than we can read, so subtitles rarely include all the spoken words. The longer the subtitle, the longer the viewer will take to read it and the less time they will have to watch. According to Netflix policies, for example, subtitles can’t have more than two lines and 42 characters, and shouldn’t stay on the screen for longer than seven seconds. Additionally, in the above example, the translations do not reflect the reference to religious slang, typical of Spanish culture. Rather than fixating on this reference and assuming it is an essential part of the dialogue, a good translator would consider what an English-speaking character would say in this context and find a suitable alternative that will sound natural and make sense to the viewer. New rules of engagement It is encouraging to see that some viewers are so devoted to the content they watch: foreign films and TV shows help promote cultural understanding and empathy. But not all viewers act in the same way and the solutions provided by the translators need to cater to everyone who decides to watch the show. This leads to different viewing experiences, but it only reflects the reality of watching any culturally charged product, even in our own languages. In English, for instance, consider all the references and nuances that a British viewer could miss when watching an English-language film produced in South Africa, Jamaica or Pakistan. Translators do not blindly look for literal translations. On the contrary, in the translation profession, hints of literal translation often signal low-quality work. Translators focus on meaning and, in the case of films and series, will endeavour to provide viewers with a product that will create a similar experience to the original. The case of Squid Game has been instrumental in bringing discussions about translation to the fore. Of course there are good and bad translations, but the main gain here is the opportunity to debate what determines this. Through such discussions, viewers are becoming more aware of the role and complexities of translation.

A missed opportunity - hospital doctors must stop 'risky' medicines

Hospital doctors and pharmacists should stop ‘risky’ medicines before patients leave hospital - according to researchers at the University of East Anglia. One in two older people are prescribed a medicine which over time has become inappropriate or unnecessary. In a recent National Overprescribing Review titled ‘Good for you, good for us, good for everybody’, the government called on doctors and pharmacists working in GP surgeries to tackle the problem of overprescribing. But research from UEA’s School of Pharmacy has found that nine out of 10 older hospital patients and their family believe that inappropriate or unnecessary medicines should also be spotted and stopped whilst they are in hospital. And the team say that by the time people are back under their GP care, a major opportunity has been missed. Prof Debi Bhattacharya, from UEA’s School of Pharmacy, said: “We know that half of older people admitted to hospital arrive having been prescribed a medicine that over time has become inappropriate for them. These medicines will have more risks than benefits. “And their side effects cause problems, like making them feel drowsy, nauseous or have trouble getting to sleep. These problems impact a person’s quality of life to the extent that they can cause re-hospitalisation. “Our research has shown that very few patients have one of these ‘risky’ medicines stopped whilst in hospital. “Continuing medicines when they are not needed unnecessarily harms people and wastes NHS money. “The time is right to undertake research into ways of safely increasing the number of inappropriate and unnecessary medicines that are stopped,” she added. To tackle the problem, Prof Bhattacharya is leading a £2.4 million trial to stop risky medicines in hospital - in collaboration with researchers at the Universities of York, Newcastle, Leeds and Leicester, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. Patient and Public Engagement lead for CHARMER, Katherine Murphy, said: “We are working with hospitals and GP organisations across England to see whether the new strategy works, helps people, causes no harm, and is good value for the NHS. “And for this trial to be meaningful to people, we need to make sure that we look at the things that matter to them when testing whether stopping a medicine has had a positive outcome.” The research team recently surveyed 200 people including patients, informal carers, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and researchers to find out what they should look at in the trial. On reviewing the results Katherine Murphy said: “It was good to see that what people really want us to look at is whether patients can do the things that they want to do, not how much patients can do. “Being able to walk up a flight of stairs, for example, may be important to some patients but not to others. We need to make sure that medicines are prescribed that support people to get the best quality of life. In the trial, we also need to make sure that the way that we stop risky medicines causes no harm and is good value for the NHS.” For more information about the CHARMER study visit https://www.uea.ac.uk/web/groups-and-centres/charmer/about-the-research The research has been funded by the National Institute of Health and Social Care research.

How rabbits help restore unique habitats for rare species

European wild rabbits are a ‘keystone species’ that hold together entire ecosystems – according to researchers at the University of East Anglia. Our campus is home to hundreds of rabbits and Prof Diana Bell, from our School of Biological Sciences, has been researching them for more than 30 years. Now, she is one of the lead researchers on a new report which aims to restore and protect at-risk wildlife habitats which are rabbit dependent. The report shows how their grazing and digging activity keeps the ground in a condition that is perfect for sustaining other species that would otherwise move on – or die out. But their numbers are declining regionally, nationally and globally. And they are even being classed as endangered in their native region, the Iberian Peninsula. The findings come as efforts to save England’s most threatened species from extinction are turning the tide for wildlife in Norfolk and Suffolk thanks to the Shifting Sands project. Shifting Sands is one of 19 projects across England that make up the national Back from the Brink initiative. Together, these projects aim to save 20 species from extinction and benefit over 200 more. Lead partner of the rabbit work-stream and rabbit expert Prof Diana Bell, from UEA’ School of Biology, said: “The Breckland-based Shifting Sands project was set up to save some of the region’s rarest wildlife. “After several years of hard work by this multi-partner project, the fortunes of species classed as declining, rare, near-threatened or endangered are now improving in the Brecks. “The project has seen species recover in record numbers – including endangered beetle and plants, one of which is found nowhere else in the world. “Rabbits are incredibly important because their grazing and digging activity keeps the ground in a condition that is perfect for sustaining other species. “Sadly, rabbit populations have declined dramatically in the UK and across Europe, and the European wild rabbit is now listed as endangered in its ancestral Iberian Peninsula range. Their decline is largely due to a spill-over of new viruses from commercially bred rabbits. “The Shifting Sands project has shown us how important rabbits are to entire ecosystems, and it is vital that these habitats are conserved and protected. “We encouraged a rabbit revolution in the Brecks and we have produced a toolkit in partnership with Natural England to help landowners of similar rabbit-dependent habitats to do the same.” “Simple cost-effective ways of encouraging rabbits include creating piles of felled branches, known as brush piles, and banks of soil.” Monitoring over the past three years has shown the interventions are working, with evidence of significantly higher amounts of rabbit activity. Prof Bell said: “Our work resulted in evidence of rabbit activity in significantly higher numbers. 91 per cent of brush piles showed paw scrapes and 41 per cent contained burrows. Even when burrows did not form, the brush piles helped expand the range of rabbit activity.” The UEA research team worked in collaboration with Natural England, Forestry England, Plantlife, Breckland Flora Group, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Butterfly Conservation, Buglife, the Elveden Estate and the RSPB to deliver this ambitious partnership project. It has seen five kilometres of ‘wildlife highways’ created, more than 100 specimens of rare plants re-introduced, habitat created and restored across 12 sites, species encouraged, and landscape-management practices improved. As a result, seven species of plant, bird and insect are increasing in number and many more are benefiting in turn. Among those species recovering are rare plants such as the prostrate perennial knawel that is unique to the Brecks, basil thyme and field wormwood. The endangered wormwood moonshiner beetle, lunar yellow underwing moth and five-banded digger tailed wasp are also increasing. All these species are identified in the UK’s Biodiversity Action Plan as being priorities for conservation. The open habitat maintained by rabbits supports two rare plants: the prostrate perennial knawel – found nowhere else in the world – and field wormwood. Pip Mountjoy, Shifting Sands project manager at Natural England, said: “The Brecks were described by Charles Dickens as “barren”. They are anything but. Their 370 square miles of sandy heathland, open grassland and forest support almost 13,000 species, making it one of the UK’s most important areas for wildlife. “That wildlife is under threat. Felling trees and encouraging a species that is often considered a pest may seem a strange solution. But in this instance, carefully managed ‘disturbance’ is exactly what this landscape and its biodiversity needs.” “The project’s interventions have provided a lifeline for this unique landscape, and shown how biodiversity can be promoted by ‘disturbing’ places – not just by leaving them alone. “ “These rare habitats are becoming overgrown and species are declining as a result of changing land management practices and human impacts. It’s our responsibility to restore and maintain these spaces for nature. Some of these species exist only here and, if lost, will be lost forever.” Established in 2017 with £4.7m from the Heritage Lottery Fund and £2.1m from other bodies, Back from the Brink was the first nationwide co-ordinated effort to bring together charities, conservation organisations and government bodies to save threatened species. More information about the Brecks, Shifting Sands, Back from the Brink and a toolkit to help rabbit conservation is available via www.naturebftb.co.uk.

Georgia Southern University Museum reopens just in time to celebrate Earth Sciences Week

After nearly three years and following extensive architectural renovations, the Georgia Southern Museum, one of the longest-standing educational centers on the University's Statesboro Campus, has reopened. "It has been a long project, but well worth the journey," said Georgia Southern Museum Director Brent Tharp, Ph.D. "The upgraded facility and newly designed galleries represent a new era for the museum. Visitors will still find old friends, like the mosasaur, but exhibited in new more exciting ways, and will make new discoveries with never before exhibited artifacts in expanded permanent exhibits preserving the area's culture. We are really excited to be back open to the public." The Georgia Southern Museum serves as the premier institution interpreting the natural and cultural history of Georgia's coastal plain. The museum displays permanent exhibits and changing exhibits curated by the University's faculty and students, and provides a place where researchers can explore its collections and students of all ages can learn. As part of its reopening celebration, the Museum will recognize Earth Sciences Week with events featuring social media videos and interactive displays by Georgia Southern students, faculty and alumni. Highlighted events for Earth Sciences Week include: Oct. 12 - Earth Observation Day  Oct. 13 - National Fossil Day Oct, 14 - Geoscience for Everyone Day Oct. 15 - Geologic Map Day Oct. 16 - International Archaeology Day Admission to the museum is $4 per person; however, for a limited time the museum also will accept donations for admission. Children 3 years of age and younger, museum members, and Georgia Southern students receive free admission. If you’re a journalist looking to cover Earth Sciences Week or talk to any of the many experts at the museum – then let us help. The researchers behind this study are available, simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.

‘Boilerplate language’ is preventing non-professional investors from making sound decisions, new research finds

Aston University’s Dr Ozlem Arikan looked at the impact of the style of corporate information on investor decisions Companies arguably avoid being specific by using ‘boilerplate language’ to avoid negative reactions of the investors Dr Arikan’s research suggests that boilerplate information is not useful for investment decisions and investors lose trust in managers who use boilerplate language New research from Aston University has found boilerplate language used by managers is preventing their non-professional investors from making sound decisions. Dr Ozlem Arikan examined the impact of the style of corporate information on non-professional investor decisions. The term ‘boilerplate’ refers to standardised text, copy, documents, methods or procedures that may be used over again without making major changes to the original. In the context of risk disclosures as studied by Dr Arikan, boilerplate description of risks entails a generic list of risks that are common to all industry, rather than including details relating to risks specific to that entity. Regulators are concerned about generic disclosures which they label as boilerplate; they warn that disclosures which do not have enough details do not help investors to make sound decisions. An example of a boilerplate can be found in Google’s risk disclosure which cites social media companies as its main competitors without specifying Facebook, an obvious competitor to Google in terms of generating online advertising revenues. Dr Arikan found that although some investors are less likely to invest in a company when its disclosure is specific, this only happens when they had some knowledge about the issue disclosed. However, when the disclosed risk materialises, investors rate boilerplate managers as less credible than specific managers and are less likely to invest in these companies. Dr Ozlem Arikan, senior lecturer in accounting at Aston Business School, said: “My research suggests the Financial Reporting Council has been right all along about ‘boilerplate language’ preventing non-professional investors from making sound decisions, and it is not good for companies either. “When companies are evasive about their risks, they neither help themselves nor their investors. “Companies arguably avoid being specific to avoid negative reactions of the investors. For example, Google presumably avoids mentioning Facebook as it does not want to make Facebook’s threat to its business too explicit. However, my research suggests that companies do not necessarily avoid negative reactions by being boilerplate. “Regulators may wish to guide companies in how to make more specific disclosures, which are more useful to investors in their decision-making than their boilerplate counterparts. “Importantly boilerplate language does not give enough warnings to investors as those who read a boilerplate risk warning are more surprised when the risk materialises and they correct their previous decisions to a greater extent than investors who read the specific information” You can read the full paper, The effect of boilerplate language on nonprofessional investors’ judgments, HERE. You can find out more about Dr Arikan’s previous research HERE.

Corporate Social Responsibility Builds Investor Trust

There’s little doubt that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a good thing for businesses. Whether it’s taking positive action on society, communities, the climate, or the planet, strong corporate citizenship tends to play well with the public, the media, and consumers alike. And that can translate into wins in terms of brand equity and reputation. What is perhaps less clear are the concrete business returns that ethical business practices may or may not generate. Or, whether doing the right thing can create value for firms beyond image, brand, and customer or employee engagement. To shed light on this, Goizueta Assistant Professor of Accounting Suhas A. Sridharan, has taken a rather novel approach. Together with colleagues from the universities of LUISS Guido Carli, Nazarbayev University, and IDC Herzliya, Sridharan has published a new study using measures of disclosure credibility to understand whether CSR builds investor trust and drives tangible benefits for corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility Does Reap Rewards “Disclosure credulity refers to how much your investors trust the information your organization provides – how much faith they have in your company’s ability to accurately convey opportunities for growth, and perhaps more critically, to navigate risk and uncertainty,” says Sridharan. “Because CSR and responsible business practices have a role in addressing a range of risks–from climate change and environmental factors to socio-economic or political uncertainty and the impact on supply chains, talent and so on–we reasoned CSR can impact investor trust and disclosure credibility. And disclosure credibility, in turn, can impact investor decision-making and business outcomes.” To study disclosure credibility, and capture shifts in investor sentiment towards firms, Sridharan and her colleagues decided to use the link between share prices and company earnings announcements–the public statements on profitability that firms are obliged to make over different periods. “Earnings announcements are among the most salient and recurring areas of corporate disclosure, and managers and investors pay very close attention to them,” Sridharan says. “Because of the nature of the information they contain, they have a direct link to security price discovery – the price that firms and investors will agree to buy and sell shares in the company. Simply put, earnings announcements can be used to examine how much investors value a firm.” As reports, earnings announcements are also highly complex and typically time-consuming to process. Because of this, Sridharan and her colleagues opted to look at just how quickly or slowly investors were reading announcements and responding to them – and how quickly or slowly stock prices were adjusting to reflect earnings news within a five-day window after earnings announcements, as well as a longer period to allow for potential overreaction or error. More Disclosure Credibility Equals Faster Results Sridharan explains, “The intuition we brought to the study was that the more investors trust a firm’s disclosures, the more efficient or faster they will be to process its earnings report; in other words, the more they will be likely to take the report on face value and less inclined to dig into the finer minutiae or question its findings.” Adopting this approach, she and her colleagues then compared and contrasted investor response to earnings reports from different firms, with greater or less involvement in CSR activities. In total, they looked at a large-scale sample of more than 19,000 annual earnings announcements from just under 3,000 U.S. firms over a 25-year period, between 1992 and 2017. Using Morgan Stanley Capital International environmental, social, and governance ratings, they were also able to determine the degree of firm-level CSR across their dataset during this period. Crunching the numbers, Sridharan and fellow researchers were able to arrive at a concrete conclusion: CSR measurably increases investor trust and disclosure credibility. “When we estimated our regression models, we found clear evidence that corporate social responsibility does indeed contribute to the average speed of price discovery around earnings announcements; and it does so positively. Our results reveal that CSR increases the speed with which stock prices incorporate earnings news. Breaking it right down, we see that a one unit increase in CSR activities corresponds to 1.96 percent increase in the average timeliness or efficiency of reported earnings.” In other words, investors are reacting more quickly and favorably to performance reports made by organizations with more demonstrated social responsibility. “We know that these types of announcements are lengthy and dense; they take time to process,” Sridharan says. “So, the intuition here is that when your firm plants a flag on responsibility and accountability, investors are more likely to take your disclosures at face value – they’re more likely to trust what you’re saying.” Organizations would do well to take this finding on board, says Sridharan; especially in today’s climate of high volatility and uncertainty. Having investors on board is critical in weathering the bad times along with the good, she adds, and CSR can be a game-changing tool in building that necessary trust. The Wild West of the Regulatory Landscape Sridharan’s paper also informs the regulatory landscape around corporate responsibility which is still in its infancy and which she likens to something of a “Wild West.” “The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulators are increasingly focused on improving the functioning of capital markets and understanding the role of CSR,” she says. “The SEC has included an examination of climate and ESG-related risks among its 2021 examination priorities which also underscores a growing investor interest in these issues. At the same time, research is showing that CSR can be misused or simply deployed to benefit managers looking to score reputational points with stakeholders–at the expense of shareholders. By demonstrating that investor perceptions of firms are materially shaped by firms’ CSR activities, our study highlights the importance of–and helps build the case for–monitoring and regulating firms’ CSR activities.” Suhas A. Sridharan is an Assistant Professor of Accounting at Emory University's Goizueta Business School. Sridharan studies investors' use of information to assess risk and resolve uncertainty, particularly around issues of political economy. She is available to speak with media about the importantance of CSR - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Emory Experts - Ad-blockers Shave $14.2 Billion Off Consumer Spending, Says New Research

Digital advertising is big business. So big, in fact, that it is well on track to become the most dominant form of advertising. Estimates suggest that spending on digital ads in the U.S. alone will reach a staggering $201 billion by 2023 – more than two-thirds of total spend. And it makes sense. With consumers increasingly shopping online, advertisers continue to ramp up their use of data and technologies to find innovative new ways to reach target audiences. The Flip Side to Digital Advertising Success The sheer ubiquity of online advertisements is driving a corollary upswing in the use of another digital technology. Ad blockers are easy-to-install and free-to-use software that consumers can deploy to hide unwanted ads on their screens, and they are gaining huge popularity worldwide. The numbers are hard to determine, but some evidence points to anywhere from 600 million to two billion Internet users having downloaded some form of ad-blocking in the last three years or so – well over 11% of the global internet population. Also hard to gauge is the impact on advertising revenue that ad-blockers are having – that is, until now. A new paper by Vilma Todri, assistant professor of information systems and operations management at Goizueta, sheds stunning light on the effect of ad-blocking on online search and purchasing behaviors among internet users. And what she has found should give advertisers serious pause for thought. According to her analysis, ad-blockers decrease consumer online spending by an average of 1.45%. Now, assuming that around 615 million internet users have downloaded some kind of ad-blocking software in recent years, the actual impact puts the loss in revenue from digital advertising around the $14.2 billion mark, year over year. And that’s not all. Todri also finds that ad-blocking seems to have the effect of limiting consumer spending disproportionally on certain brands over others. Users who opt out of seeing digital ads tend to continue to purchase mostly those products or services they are already familiar with, and not engage with new brands; they are less likely to use different search channels or visit new e-commerce websites as a result of ad-blocking. Analyzing Customer Engagement from 300 Million Internet Visits To get at these insights, Todri analyzed data from a U.S. web behavior dataset spanning a three-year period, from January 2015 to December 2018. She looked at web-wide visits, transaction behaviors and demographic identifiers across a total of 92,000+ users and more than 300 million internet visits. To measure the effect of ad-blocking, Todri matched all of this data with an ad-blocker dataset from the same source – a well-known U.S. measurement and analytics company – which shows that around 10% of users had installed an ad-blocker at some point during this three-year window. Crunching the numbers, Todri finds that the effect of using ad-blocking software on these users is to reduce their online search engine sessions by 5.6%. They also spend 5.5% less time visiting e-commerce websites. In other words, consumers who opt out of seeing ads end up browsing and shopping significantly less than others. And in terms of what these users are buying, the data shows that they are much less likely to spend on brands they don’t know or have not experienced before (and conversely, more likely to stick to familiar brands.) Digging even deeper, Todri also finds that this negative effect penalizes the brands that invest most heavily in advertising online more that those that don’t. In other words, ad-blockers are hurting those who advertise online most. Todri’s paper is the first to expose the quantitative, negative impact of ad-blocking on consumer spending. And her findings should be on the radar of any company looking to market its products and services online, she says. “The data clearly shows that ad-blockers reduce online spending by 1.45%, which amounts to something in the order of $14.2 billion in lost revenue given that about 600 million people around the world have installed this kind of software,” she says. “And the figures suggest that it’s the brands that heavily invest on online advertising who are bearing the brunt of this drop-off in consumer spending.” Search Behaviors, Interrupted “Advertisers also need to look at the fact that ad-blockers inhibit search behaviors,” adds Todri. “The figures point to a drop of around 5% when users have installed ad-blockers, which in turn means that they are not discovering and spending on new brands. They’re sticking with what they already know.” There’s an imperative here for companies to interpret these findings and reflect on what they say about ad-blocking, and also about what constitutes “acceptable advertising practices,” she says. “It’s reasonable to assume that people who use ad-blockers simply don’t like ads and aren’t influenced by them. Yet the data points to a different conclusion: if consumer purchasing falls after installing ad-blockers, it would suggest that advertising does work – seeing advertisements does drive searching and purchasing behaviors. So taken together, there’s a likely imperative here for advertisers to find new formats in terms of reaching their targets, and to strengthen their organic channels and social presence online.” Digital advertising clearly does impact search and purchasing behaviors, says Todri, so firms need to get creative while being cognizant of the fact that some consumers find current advertising practices annoying. Vilma Todri is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Previously, she worked for Google where she was developing integrated cross-platform advertising strategies for large business clients that partnered with tech giant. Vilma is available to speak with media about this subject – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

‘The Murder Book: Understanding Homicide Today’

Augusta professor’s latest book is out now The grisly details of murder and true crime fascinate Americans. Whether it’s the current news about the horrific homicide of 22-year-old Gabby Petito, who disappeared while traveling in Wyoming with her boyfriend, Brian Laundrie, or the unsolved killing of child beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey in her home in Boulder, Colorado, almost 25 years ago, people are intrigued by murder. People’s obsession with true crime has also taken the entertainment industry by storm, leading to numerous popular documentaries, movies about murders, television series on cold case investigations and podcasts dedicated to homicide. The genre is so prolific that Hulu’s latest hit — Only Murders In the Building, starring Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Selena Gomez — centers on Upper West Side neighbors and true crime podcast fans who sleuth out a murder podcast on their own. “Murder captures our attention,” said Dr. Kim Davies, dean of Pamplin College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, who is also a sociologically trained criminologist with an academic focus on homicide and violence. “For a lot of people, I think it’s the idea of solving a mystery. And many people who find murder so fascinating, haven’t ever seen an autopsy and they haven’t seen a death. “When I taught my Sociology of Murder class here at Augusta University, I used to take students to autopsies and it’s gruesome. It’s not like what you see on television or in the movies.” Just last month, Oxford University Press published Davies’ new book, The Murder Book: Understanding Homicide Today. Back in 2007, Prentice Hall published The Murder Book: Examining Homicide by Davies, which was the only comprehensive textbook to focus on homicide. Her new textbook explores additional topics such as the increase in mass murders, the change in Stand Your Ground laws across the country and police shootings as it relates to the Black Lives Matter movement. “Probably the biggest difference in the two books is the chapter on mass murder,” Davies said. “Unfortunately, there have been a number of huge mass murders since the last book such as Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and the Las Vegas shooting that killed 58 people. In fact, our society and our news media has focused on mass murders much more. “When I wrote the last book, students were fascinated by serial murder, and a lot of students still are, but now it seems like we are more focused on mass murder.” The full release about Davies’ book release is attached, and well worth the read. If you’re a journalist covering true crime or any other aspect of this fascinating topic – then let us help with your stories. Dr. Kim Davies is a sociologically trained criminologist with academic focus is on homicide and violence. Kim is available to speak with media about this subject – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

ChristianaCare recognized by American Medical Association with 2021 Joy in Medicine distinction

ChristianaCare one of only 44 nationwide to receive the distinction; one of only five to receive the highest level – Gold Recognition (WILMINGTON, Del. – Oct. 7, 2021) ChristianaCare has been named a recipient of the American Medical Association’s Joy in MedicineTM Health System Recognition Program. The distinction recognizes health systems that demonstrate a commitment to preserving the wellbeing of health care team members by engaging in proven efforts to combat work-related stress and burnout. The American Medical Association awarded ChristianaCare a “Gold Recognition” – the highest level within the program. Only 44 health systems nationwide received the Joy in Medicine distinction, with only four other health systems along with ChristianaCare achieving the Gold Recognition. “When caregivers feel supported and fulfilled in their work, the quality of both their experience and their patient’s experience improves,” said Heather Farley, M.D., MHCDS, chief wellness officer and head of ChristianaCare’s Center for WorkLife Wellbeing. “That’s why, when the COVID-19 pandemic struck, we deepened our investment of resources to support our caregivers. While there’s still a long way to go, we are grateful to receive this recognition as it affirms our commitment to helping our caregivers foster meaning, connection and joy in work and in life.” ChristianaCare received the “Gold Recognition” for achieving six criteria: An organization-wide commitment to improving physician wellbeing. An assessment of the costs of physician burnout. Evidence-based interventions to reduce and eliminate burnout. Leadership commitment to address areas for improvement. Interventions to improve teamwork. Structured programs that actively engage doctors to cultivate community at work. These criteria align with ChristianaCare’s commitment to support its caregivers in alignment with the organization’s core values of love and excellence. ChristianaCare has implemented structured ways of working that encourages leaders to create environments where their workers feel safe asking questions and feel empowered to identify and solve problems. ChristianaCare also uses numerous surveys and assessments to track progress in improving the wellbeing and experience of caregivers. ChristianaCare’s Unique Center for WorkLife Wellbeing ChristianaCare established the Center for WorkLife Wellbeing in 2016 to develop support systems to enable clinicians to reconnect with the joy and meaning in medicine. “We recognized the growing problem of stress and burnout in health care, and we made a decision to tackle it head-on,” said Janice E. Nevin, M.D., MPH, ChristianaCare president and CEO. “The work of our psychologists, researchers, clinicians and peer supporters in the Center for WorkLife Wellbeing is built on the understanding that when we care for ourselves, we are better able to care for others, resulting in decreased medical errors and a better experience of care for everyone involved.” The Center soon expanded its mission to support all of ChristianaCare’s caregivers, including those who don’t work in clinical roles. The Center also has received national recognition for its expertise and leadership in the field of workplace wellbeing. Throughout the pandemic, the Center for WorkLife Wellbeing has proactively shared a variety of resources to support caregivers as they work to provide safe, effective care and reduce the spread of COVID-19. This includes: The Care for the Caregiver program, which provides confidential individual peer support and group support to caregivers when they experience stress related to patient care or the workplace. Peer supporters and organizational leaders receive training so they can provide psychological first aid to caregivers whom they recognize are struggling as well as connect them to helpful resources if needed. Emotional support through mindfulness resources and regular rounds where the Center’s experts can check on staff wellbeing. OASIS Rooms, which are quiet sanctuaries inside the hospital where caregivers can go to take a break, de-stress, meditate or enjoy a chair massage. 24/7 mental health services and programs to help caregivers maintain healthy habits including proper exercise, sleep and nutrition. Fitness centers that are free for all caregivers to use and provide easy access to exercise and fitness programs. “I always use the analogy, you can’t take the canary out of the coal mine and teach it to be more resilient and then put it back in the same coal mine and expect it to survive,” Dr. Farley said. “You actually have to change the coal mine – the environment surrounding our caregivers and clinicians. That’s what we’re doing in the Center for WorkLife Wellbeing.” Solutions to a National Problem A national study examining the experiences of physicians and other health care workers who worked in health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic found that 38% self-reported experiencing anxiety or depression, while 43% suffered from work overload and 49% had burnout. “The COVID-19 pandemic has placed extraordinary stress on physicians and other health care professionals,” said American Medical Association President Gerald E. Harmon, M.D. “While it is always important for health systems to focus on the wellbeing of care teams, the imperative is greater than ever as acute stress from combatting the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to higher rates of work overload, anxiety and depression. The health systems we recognize today are true leaders in promoting an organizational response that makes a difference in the lives of the health care workforce.” Launched in 2019, the Joy in Medicine Health System Recognition Program is a component of the American Medical Association’s practice transformation efforts, an ambitious initiative to advance evidence-based solutions to address the physician burnout crisis. Candidates for the program were evaluated according to their documented efforts to reduce work-related burnout through system-level drivers. Scoring criteria were based on demonstrated competencies in commitment, assessment, leadership, efficiency of practice environment, teamwork and support. About ChristianaCare Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, ChristianaCare is one of the country’s most dynamic health care organizations, centered on improving health outcomes, making high-quality care more accessible and lowering health care costs. ChristianaCare includes an extensive network of primary care and outpatient services, home health care, urgent care centers, three hospitals (1,299 beds), a freestanding emergency department, a Level I trauma center and a Level III neonatal intensive care unit, a comprehensive stroke center and regional centers of excellence in heart and vascular care, cancer care and women’s health. It also includes the pioneering Gene Editing Institute. ChristianaCare is nationally recognized as a great place to work, rated by Forbes as the 5th best health system to work for in the United States and by IDG Computerworld as one of the nation’s Best Places to Work in IT. ChristianaCare is rated by HealthGrades as one of America’s 50 Best Hospitals and continually ranked among the nation’s best by Newsweek and other national quality ratings. ChristianaCare is a nonprofit teaching health system with more than 260 residents and fellows. With its groundbreaking Center for Virtual Health and a focus on population health and value-based care, ChristianaCare is shaping the future of health care. #####

History was made at Arlington – and UConn’s expert was recruited to help with national news coverage

For the first time in the 84 years that soldiers have stood watch over the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, the duty was carried out by three women. UConn's Micki McElya, a professor in the Department of History and the author of The Politics of Mourning: Death and Honor in Arlington National Cemetery, offered her perspective and insight into the significance of the moment: The images of the three female soldiers were a “visual marker” of the often unrecognized sacrifices that women and other marginalized people in the United States have made for the military, Professor McElya said. “Women have served either officially or unofficially in every single war this country has ever waged, but they have never been drafted,” she said. “So if we want to talk about sacrifice and honor, women have done that because they wanted to.” The changing of the guard was also an important moment in military history, one that showed that women are serving in “the most revered positions,” said Kara Dixon Vuic, a professor of war, conflict and society in 20th-century America at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth. “These are the rituals that the nation holds dear,” she said. “Some might call it militaristic and some might say it represents the best of us. But to have women at the heart of it, whatever your perspective is, is important because it shows that women are at the heart of these debates now.” If you are a journalist covering the historic aspects of this occasion or other events taking place, then let our experts help with your stories. Professor McElya is an expert in the histories of women, gender, sexuality, and race in the U.S., with a focus on politics and memory. She’s available to speak with media regarding these topics – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.