Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Masoud Davari, Ph.D., associate professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the Allen E. Paulson College of Engineering & Computing, was recognized for his achievements in the field of power electronics control and testing with the IEEE Region 3 Outstanding Engineer Award. He was also granted membership into Eta Kappa Nu (HKN), IEEE’s international honor society. IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is the world’s largest professional organization for electrical engineers, with its membership numbering over 486,000 in more than 190 countries. Davari has been a member of IEEE since 2008 and a senior member of IEEE’s Region 3 since 2019. The organization’s Region 3 encompasses the southeastern United States and has over 24,000 members. The Outstanding Engineer Award, given annually to one member per region, recognizes those who have advanced knowledge and improved humanity through any of the technical subjects covered by the IEEE societies, councils, and affinity groups. Davari was praised for “outstanding, technical, and professional contributions to synthesizing reinforcement learning optimal controls for power electronic converters, creating robust integration of power electronics considering the impact of cyberattacks on modern grids, and advancing IEEE standards for hardware-in-the-loop testing and education through impactful research and service.” This impactful research and service includes eight years of teaching at Georgia Southern. He currently teaches introductory courses on circuit analysis and power systems fundamentals. He has also served as a chapter lead of the IEEE Working Group (WG) P2004 for testing based on hardware-in-the-loop simulations in the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA) and that of the IEEE Power and Energy Society Task Force on innovative teaching methods for modern power and energy systems (TR 120). In addition to being an engaged educator, Davari is also a prolific researcher. He was selected as the finalist for the 2024 Curtis W. McGraw Research Award by the Awards Committee of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE); has also been awarded a research fellowship by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation in 2024; was included in Stanford/Elsevier’s Top 2% Scientist Rankings list; and has received $1.17 million in grants from the National Science Foundation Davari’s work ethic and commitment to bridging the gap between industry and research led Rami Haddad, Ph.D., interim dean of the College of Engineering & Computing, to nominate him. “Dr. Davari’s recognition as the IEEE Region 3 Outstanding Engineer and his induction into IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu (HKN) are truly remarkable honors that reflect his outstanding contributions to electrical and computer engineering,” Haddad said. “Being recognized among more than 24,000 IEEE members across the Southeast is a testament to the impact and excellence of his work. We are proud to have Dr. Davari as a valued member of our college, and we celebrate his achievements as a shining example of the innovation and leadership that define our faculty.” This award marks the first time a Georgia Southern faculty member has received it in its 55-year history. It is a career milestone for Davari, who has published research on advanced technology integration into modern power and energy systems in high-impact-factor IEEE Transactions/Journal venues and has extensively researched the era of grid-edge technologies. “I’m deeply honored by this prestigious award,” Davari said. “Not only does it reaffirm my dedication to my research field, but it also fuels my passion for creating a technologically advanced future. Receiving this IEEE award on behalf of my outstanding team is a privilege. Their relentless commitment and hard work since 2015 have truly made this achievement possible.” Davari’s induction into HKN places him among the best in his field. The membership, which is received through invitation only from HKN’s Board of Governors and is based on the candidate’s record of contributions to the field, demonstrated leadership, and community service. “With a legacy that stretches over a century, IEEE-HKN represents the pinnacle of prestige and tradition in our profession, indicating academic achievements and dedication to research, potential leadership, exemplary character, and a positive attitude. Notably, many of our industry’s most influential leaders initiated their journeys through induction into IEEE-HKN as professional members, so receiving this honor is a privilege.” Davari received his award and was inducted into Eta Kappa Nu (HKN) in March at IEEE Region 3’s SoutheastCon 2025 in Charlotte, North Carolina. If you're interested in learning more and want to book time to talk or interview with Masoud Davari then let us help - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Brent Feske, Ph.D., has been named associate vice president for Research in the Office of Research and Economic Development, effective March 1. Feske has served as the interim associate vice president for Research since Sept. 1, 2024. In this short time, he has already significantly impacted the University’s research enterprise. As interim associate vice president for Research, Feske prioritized engaging with the people in his office and the colleges conducting research. “I’ve settled in and moved past the introductory phase,” he said. “I feel I’ve gained a strong understanding of each college’s needs, wants, and aspirations. Together, we’ve laid a solid foundation, and I’m excited to see how our scholarship enterprise can grow and how the Office of Research and Economic Development can help each college reach its full potential.” With nearly twenty years of experience as a dedicated faculty member, Feske brought valuable leadership to the Office of Research and Economic Development. Under his guidance, the office increased internal funding mechanisms to support research, doctoral students and external grant writing. He has also led improvements in how research expenditures are captured and properly coded, providing a clearer picture of the Georgia Southern research landscape. Additionally, he has played a key role in expanding the pre-award team, ensuring better support for faculty and staff throughout the grant submission and award process. “I’m thrilled to have Dr. Feske permanently join the team,” said Vice President for Research and Economic Development David C. Weindorf, Ph.D. “His experience as an administrator and a faculty member really does give him a 360-degree view of the research enterprise and makes him uniquely qualified to lead and help us grow in every aspect. We’ve already accomplished so much, and I can’t wait to see what comes next.” If you want to book time to talk or interview with Brent Feske about his new role, then let us help - simply click on his icon now or contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
When an invitation to sit on the Georgia Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers arrived in an informal email from a colleague, Michael Toma, Ph.D., welcomed the chance to share his ongoing research on the economic health of southeastern Georgia with Gov. Brian Kemp, the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate leadership and their constituents. However, when he joined a small group of colleagues from around the state in a legislative office near the capitol in Atlanta late last year, the opportunity felt far from casual. “It does seem like it’s an honor because I looked around the table and there were only 10 or so of us from the entire state of Georgia,” said Toma, the Fuller E. Callaway professor of economics in Georgia Southern University’s Parker College of Business. “It’s nice to be invited to join this council informing the executive and legislative branches of government about economic conditions in the state of Georgia. I know the southeastern part of the state, so it’s nice to be recognized and be invited to speak about this region to a state-level audience.” The Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers is a select group of mostly higher education economists from various University System of Georgia institutions, in addition to the chief economist from Georgia Power, who meet annually. Toma, who specializes in macroeconomics and regional economics, is well known for his expertise throughout Savannah and the surrounding region. Since 2000, he has written and distributed The Economic Monitor, a quarterly publication housed within Georgia Southern’s Economics Department and Center for Business Analytics and Economic Research. The economic analysis offers a snapshot of the Savannah Metropolitan Statistical Area economy, including Bryan, Chatham and Effingham counties, and informs business owners across the Coastal Empire. He also regularly speaks to chambers of commerce and business groups in the region. In the governor’s council meeting, which was televised to state legislators, the economists took turns speaking about their respective areas of expertise to Gov. Kemp as part of an educational process and annual update for the executive and legislative branches. “The academics from the different institutions discussed economic conditions in their regions of the state,” Toma said. “I highlighted the activity here in Savannah, the growing manufacturing base and the wages associated with the Hyundai plant being injected into the regional economy, and the build-out of the supply chain for the Hyundai plant. “I discussed manufacturing development in the context of broader economic growth within the region that’s layered on top of our normal growth pattern, and that the economic development initiative is starting to pay the dividends it was anticipated to pay.” Following each individual presentation, the governor held an open forum for all in attendance to speak more fluidly with the group. “He had questions for the panel in general about small business activity,” stated Toma. “So I was able to characterize the ecosystem for small businesses in Chatham County. “He said that was a great report.” Toma holds a Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University. He joined Georgia Southern on the Armstrong Campus in Savannah in 1997. If you're interested in learning more about this topic and want to book time to talk or interview with Michael Toma then let us help - simply click on his icon now or contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Georgia Southern’s Shainaz Landge receives Regents’ Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Award
For Shainaz Landge, Ph.D., pushing boundaries in the classroom and the laboratory isn’t just a professional pursuit, it’s a passion. As an associate professor of organic chemistry at Georgia Southern University, Landge has spent more than a decade inspiring students to soar beyond traditional learning by blending research, mentorship and hands-on experiences that extend far beyond textbooks. That commitment to innovation has earned Landge the Regents’ Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Award, an honor from the University System of Georgia (USG) that recognizes faculty who contribute to the scholarship of teaching and learning through research, leadership and instructional excellence. “Receiving the Regents’ Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Award is a true honor,” said Landge. “It reinforces my passion for teaching and research, inspiring me to strive for excellence every day. My goal is to cultivate an engaging, positive learning environment where students are actively involved and genuinely excited about the learning process.” Landge’s work is grounded in synthetic organic, medicinal and supramolecular chemistry. Her research focuses on developing novel synthetic methodologies with applications in medicinal chemistry and materials science, creating compounds with potential therapeutic properties and supramolecular systems with unique functionalities. “This award is a reflection of Dr. Landge’s deep passion for education and research, and her ability to inspire students to think critically and engage meaningfully with the world around them,” said Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Carl Reiber, Ph.D. “At Georgia Southern, we are dedicated to fostering an environment of discovery and innovation, and her work continues to elevate that mission, both in and out of the classroom. We are fortunate to have her as part of our academic community.” This isn’t the first time Landge’s dedication to student engagement and scientific inquiry has garnered recognition. Previously, she earned a University Award of Excellence for Student Success in 2021 and the College of Science and Mathematics Award of Excellence in Research in 2023. “This award is a testament to Dr. Landge’s exceptional contributions to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” said Michael Huggins, Ph.D., dean of the College of Science and Mathematics. “Her innovative approach has not only deepened our understanding of effective teaching but has also led to measurable improvements in student outcomes across the College of Science and Mathematics.” In addition to her research and teaching, Landge has served as a Service-Learning Faculty Fellow (2023-2024) and is a current Research Advocate, reinforcing her commitment to bridging the gap between academic learning and real-world problem-solving. For more information about the Regents’ Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Award, visit : If you're interested in connecting with Shainaz Landge and learning more about her work then let us help - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
NASA Asks Researchers to Help Define Trustworthiness in Autonomous Systems
A Florida Tech-led group of researchers was selected to help NASA solve challenges in aviation through its prestigious University Leadership Initiative (ULI) program. Over the next three years, associate professor of computer science and software engineering Siddhartha Bhattacharyya and professor of aviation human factors Meredith Carroll will work to understand the vital role of trust in autonomy. Their project, “Trustworthy Resilient Autonomous Agents for Safe City Transportation in the Evolving New Decade” (TRANSCEND), aims to establish a common framework for engineers and human operators to determine the trustworthiness of machine-learning-enabled autonomous aviation safety systems. Autonomous systems are those that can perform independent tasks without requiring human control. The autonomy of these systems is expected to be enhanced with intelligence gained from machine learning. As a result, intelligence-based software is expected to be increasingly used in airplanes and drones. It may also be utilized in airports and to manage air traffic in the future. Learning-enabled autonomous technology can also act as contingency management when used in safety applications, proactively addressing potential disruptions and unexpected aviation events. TRANSCEND was one of three projects chosen for the latest ULI awards. The others hail from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach – researching continuously updating, self-diagnostic vehicle health management to enhance the safety and reliability of Advanced Air Mobility vehicles – and University of Colorado Boulder – investigating tools for understanding and leveraging the complex communications environment of collaborative, autonomous airspace systems. Florida Tech’s team includes nine faculty members from five universities: Penn State; North Carolina A&T State University; University of Florida; Stanford University; Santa Fe College. It also involves the companies Collins Aerospace in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and ResilienX of Syracuse, New York. Carroll and Bhattacharyya will also involve students throughout the project. Human operators are an essential component of aviation technology – they monitor independent software systems and associated data and intervene when those systems fail. They may include flight crew members, air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel or safety staff monitoring overall system safety. A challenge in implementing independent software is that engineers and operators have different interpretations of what makes a system “trustworthy,” Carroll and Bhattacharyya explained. Engineers who develop autonomous software measure trustworthiness by the system’s ability to perform as designed. Human operators, however, trust and rely on systems to perform as they expect – they want to feel comfortable relying on a system to make an aeronautical decision in flight, such as how to avoid a traffic conflict or a weather event. Sometimes, that reliance won’t align with design specifications. Equally important, operators also need to trust that the software will alert them when it needs a human to take over. This may happen if the algorithm driving the software encounters a scenario it wasn’t trained for. “We are looking at how we can integrate trust from different communities – from human factors, from formal methods, from autonomy, from AI…” Bhattacharyya said. “How do we convey assumptions for trust, from design time to operation, as the intelligent systems are being deployed, so that we can trust them and know when they’re going to fail, especially those that are learning-enabled, meaning they adapt based on machine learning algorithms?” With Bhattacharyya leading the engineering side and Carroll leading the human factors side, the research group will begin bridging the trust gap by integrating theories, principles, methods, measures, visualizations, explainability and practices from different domains – this will build the TRANSCEND framework. Then, they’ll test the framework using a diverse range of tools, flight simulators and intelligent decision-making to demonstrate trustworthiness in practice. This and other data will help them develop a safety case toolkit of guidelines for development processes, recommendations and suggested safety measures for engineers to reference when designing “trustworthy,” learning-enabled autonomous systems. Ultimately, Bhattacharyya and Carroll hope their toolkit will lay the groundwork for a future learning-enabled autonomous systems certification process. “The goal is to combine all our research capabilities and pull together a unified story that outputs unified products to the industry,” Carroll said. “We want products for the industry to utilize when implementing learning-enabled autonomy for more effective safety management systems.” The researchers also plan to use this toolkit to teach future engineers about the nuances of trust in the products they develop. Once developed, they will hold outreach events, such as lectures and camps, for STEM-minded students in the community. If you're interested in connecting with Meredith Carroll or Siddhartha Bhattacharyya - simply click on the expert's profile or contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.
Expert Perspective: Mitigating Bias in AI: Sharing the Burden of Bias When it Counts Most
Whether getting directions from Google Maps, personalized job recommendations from LinkedIn, or nudges from a bank for new products based on our data-rich profiles, we have grown accustomed to having artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our lives. But are AI systems fair? The answer to this question, in short—not completely. Further complicating the matter is the fact that today’s AI systems are far from transparent. Think about it: The uncomfortable truth is that generative AI tools like ChatGPT—based on sophisticated architectures such as deep learning or large language models—are fed vast amounts of training data which then interact in unpredictable ways. And while the principles of how these methods operate are well-understood (at least by those who created them), ChatGPT’s decisions are likened to an airplane’s black box: They are not easy to penetrate. So, how can we determine if “black box AI” is fair? Some dedicated data scientists are working around the clock to tackle this big issue. One of those data scientists is Gareth James, who also serves as the Dean of Goizueta Business School as his day job. In a recent paper titled “A Burden Shared is a Burden Halved: A Fairness-Adjusted Approach to Classification” Dean James—along with coauthors Bradley Rava, Wenguang Sun, and Xin Tong—have proposed a new framework to help ensure AI decision-making is as fair as possible in high-stakes decisions where certain individuals—for example, racial minority groups and other protected groups—may be more prone to AI bias, even without our realizing it. In other words, their new approach to fairness makes adjustments that work out better when some are getting the short shrift of AI. Gareth James became the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School in July 2022. Renowned for his visionary leadership, statistical mastery, and commitment to the future of business education, James brings vast and versatile experience to the role. His collaborative nature and data-driven scholarship offer fresh energy and focus aimed at furthering Goizueta’s mission: to prepare principled leaders to have a positive influence on business and society. Unpacking Bias in High-Stakes Scenarios Dean James and his coauthors set their sights on high-stakes decisions in their work. What counts as high stakes? Examples include hospitals’ medical diagnoses, banks’ credit-worthiness assessments, and state justice systems’ bail and sentencing decisions. On the one hand, these areas are ripe for AI-interventions, with ample data available. On the other hand, biased decision-making here has the potential to negatively impact a person’s life in a significant way. In the case of justice systems, in the United States, there’s a data-driven, decision-support tool known as COMPAS (which stands for Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) in active use. The idea behind COMPAS is to crunch available data (including age, sex, and criminal history) to help determine a criminal-court defendant’s likelihood of committing a crime as they await trial. Supporters of COMPAS note that statistical predictions are helping courts make better decisions about bail than humans did on their own. At the same time, detractors have argued that COMPAS is better at predicting recidivism for some racial groups than for others. And since we can’t control which group we belong to, that bias needs to be corrected. It’s high time for guardrails. A Step Toward Fairer AI Decisions Enter Dean James and colleagues’ algorithm. Designed to make the outputs of AI decisions fairer, even without having to know the AI model’s inner workings, they call it “fairness-adjusted selective inference” (FASI). It works to flag specific decisions that would be better handled by a human being in order to avoid systemic bias. That is to say, if the AI cannot yield an acceptably clear (1/0 or binary) answer, a human review is recommended. To test the results for their “fairness-adjusted selective inference,” the researchers turn to both simulated and real data. For the real data, the COMPAS dataset enabled a look at predicted and actual recidivism rates for two minority groups, as seen in the chart below. In the figures above, the researchers set an “acceptable level of mistakes” – seen as the dotted line – at 0.25 (25%). They then compared “minority group 1” and “minority group 2” results before and after applying their FASI framework. Especially if you were born into “minority group 2,” which graph seems fairer to you? Professional ethicists will note there is a slight dip to overall accuracy, as seen in the green “all groups” category. And yet the treatment between the two groups is fairer. That is why the researchers titled their paper “a burden shared is a burdened halved.” Practical Applications for the Greater Social Good “To be honest, I was surprised by how well our framework worked without sacrificing much overall accuracy,” Dean James notes. By selecting cases where human beings should review a criminal history – or credit history or medical charts – AI discrimination that would have significant quality-of-life consequences can be reduced. Reducing protected groups’ burden of bias is also a matter of following the laws. For example, in the financial industry, the United States’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes it “illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance,” as the Federal Trade Commission explains on its website. If AI-powered programs fail to correct for AI bias, the company utilizing it can run into trouble with the law. In these cases, human reviews are well worth the extra effort for all stakeholders. The paper grew from Dean James’ ongoing work as a data scientist when time allows. “Many of us data scientists are worried about bias in AI and we’re trying to improve the output,” he notes. And as new versions of ChatGPT continue to roll out, “new guardrails are being added – some better than others.” “I’m optimistic about AI,” Dean James says. “And one thing that makes me optimistic is the fact that AI will learn and learn – there’s no going back. In education, we think a lot about formal training and lifelong learning. But then that learning journey has to end,” Dean James notes. “With AI, it never ends.” Gareth James is the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School. If you're looking to connect with him - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Most companies around the world have a leader, whether that title is a President, CEO, or Founder. There’s almost always someone at the very top of a corporate food chain, and from that position down, the company is structured hierarchically, with multiple levels of leadership supervising other employees. It’s a structure with which most people in the working world are familiar, and it dates back as long as one can remember. The word itself—leader—dates back to as far as the 12th Century and is derived from the Old English word “laedere,” or one who leads. But in 2001, a group of software engineers developed the Agile Workflow Methodology, a project development process that puts a priority on egalitarian teamwork and individual independence in searching for solutions. A number of businesses are trying to embrace a flatter internal structure, like the agile workflow. But is it necessarily the best way to develop business processes? That’s the question posed by researchers, including Goizueta Business School’s Özgecan Koçak, associate professor of organization and management, and fellow researchers Daniel A. Levinthal and Phanish Puranam in their recently published paper on organizational hierarchies. “Realistically, we don’t see a lot of non-hierarchical organizations,” says Koçak. “But there is actually a big push to have less hierarchy in organizations.” Part of it is due to the demotivating effects of working in authoritarian workplaces. People don’t necessarily like to have a boss. We place value in being more egalitarian, more participatory. Özgecan Koçak, Associate Professor of Organization & Management “So there is some push to try and design organizations with flatter hierarchies. That is specifically so in the context of knowledge-based work, and especially in the context of discovery and search.” Decoding Organizational Dynamics While the idea of an egalitarian workplace is attractive to many people, Koçak and her colleagues wanted to know if, or when, hierarchies were actually beneficial to the health of organizations. They developed a computational agent-based model, or simulation, to explore the relationships between structures of influence and organizational adaptation. The groups in the simulation mimicked real business team structures and consisted of two types of teams. In the first type, one agent had influence over the beliefs of rest of the team. For the second type, no one individual had any influence over the beliefs of the team. The hierarchical team vs. the flat structured team. “When you do simulations, you want to make sure that your findings are robust to those kinds of things like the scale of the group, or the how fast the agents are learning and so forth,” says Koçak. What’s innovative about this particular simulation is that all the agents are learning from their environment. They are learning through trial and error. They are trying out different alternatives and finding out their value. Özgecan Koçak Koçak is very clear that the hierarchies in the simulation are not exactly like hierarchies in a business organization. Every agent was purposefully made to be the same without any difference in wisdom or knowledge. “It’s really nothing like the kinds of hierarchies you would see in organizations where there is somebody who has a corner office, or somebody who is has a management title, or somebody’s making more than the others. In the simulation, it’s nothing to do with those distributional aspects or control, and nobody has the ability to control what others do in (the simulation). All control comes through influence of beliefs.” Speed vs. Optimal Solutions What they found in the simulation was that while both teams solved the same problems presented to them, they achieved different results at different speeds. We find that hierarchical teams don’t necessarily find the best solution, but they find the good enough solution in the shorter term. So if you are looking at the really long term, crowds do better. The crowds where individuals are all learning separately, they find the best solution in the long run, even though they are not learning from each other. Özgecan Koçak Özgecan Koçak (pronounced as ohz-gay-john ko-chuck) is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She holds a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. For example, teams of scientists looking for cures or innovative treatments for diseases work best with a flat structure. Each individual works on their own timeline, with their own search methodologies. The team only comes together for status updates or to discuss their projects without necessarily getting influence or direction from colleagues. The long-term success of the result is more important in some cases than the speed at which they arrive to their conclusion. That won’t work for an organization that answers to a board of directors or shareholders. Such parties want to see rapid results that will quickly impact the bottom line of the company. This is why the agile methodology is not beneficial to large-scale corporations. Koçak says, “When you try to think about an entire organization, not just teams, it gets more complicated. If you have many people in an organization, you can’t have everybody just be on the same team. And then you have to worry about how to coordinate the efforts of multiple teams. That’s the big question for scaling up agile. We know that the agile methodology works pretty well at the team level. However, when firms try to scale it up applied to the entire organization, then you have more coordination problems. Özgecan Koçak “You need some way to coordinate the efforts with multiple teams.” The Catch: Compensation Makes a Difference The simulation did not take into account one of the biggest parts of a corporate hierarchical structure—incentives and reward. The teams in the simulation received no monetary compensation for their leadership or influence. That is not something that happens in real life. Koçak says, “If you built up an organization with just influence, you just say we’re not going to have any authority, and we’re not going to give anybody the right to control anybody else’s actions. If we’re not going to be rewarding anyone more than the other, there’s not going to be any marks of status, etc. We’re just going to have some people influence others more. I would guess that would automatically lead to a prestige hierarchy right away. The person with more influence, you would start respecting more.” It’s almost like we’re incapable of working in a flat society, because somebody always wants to be or naturally becomes a leader and an influencer whether they planned on it or not. Özgecan Koçak The paper concludes that both methodologies, with either hierarchical and flat organization of teams, reach their goals. They just arrive at different times with different end results. If an organization has the luxury of time and money, a flat, agile methodology organization might be the right structure for that company. However, even agile workflow needs some coordination, according to Koçak. “There are also some search tasks that require coordination. You can’t always be searching on your own independently of others. There are some situations in which search needs to be done in a coordinated fashion by more than one person in teams. That’s because many of the knowledge-based settings where we do discovery require some division of labor, some specialization by expertise.” Communication is Key The key to any successful workflow, whether it be agile or hierarchical, is coordination and communication. Looking back to the example of scientific researchers, Koçak said, “You have scientific teams working independently of one another without a common boss dictating what they do research on or how they do it. Instead, they explore and experiment on their own. They write up their results, share their results, and learn from each other, because they are in the long-term game. The goal is to find the truth, however long it takes. “But when you look closely at a scientific team where everybody’s exploring, there is still some need for coordination. A lot of that happens through communication, and a lot of times projects will have a lead. Not necessarily somebody who knows better than the others, but somebody who’s going to help with coordination.” The leaner, flatter organizational structures in businesses might be gaining popularity. This simulation done by Koçak and colleagues, however, shows that it isn’t a perfect fit for every company, Further, some form of hierarchical workflow is necessary to maintain communication and coordination. Hierarchical structures don’t always find the best solution to a problem, but it’s almost always a good solution in a timelier fashion. Looking to know more? Özgecan Koçak is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She is available to speak with media about this topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
The Hidden Power of Invisible Experts
In a fast-moving landscape shaped by AI, hybrid work, and constant information shifts, organizations can’t afford to overlook their own expertise. Yet many still do — because the most valuable voices are often hiding in plain sight. We call them "invisible experts". These aren’t just the well-known thought leaders or executives quoted in media. They’re the researchers, engineers, clinicians, analysts, and project leads quietly shaping strategy, driving innovation, and influencing outcomes every day. They have deep knowledge, practical insight, and the credibility to build trust — but they’re often left out of the spotlight. And that’s a problem. --- The Expertise Gap Many organizations, both corporate and institutional struggle to define what makes someone an “expert”. Without a clear framework, expertise is often equated with job title, seniority, or public visibility. But in reality, expertise is multidimensional. It includes formal education, yes — but also lived experience, community influence, original research, and the ability to explain complex ideas clearly. If your organization wants to stay competitive, earn media attention, attract speaking engagements, partnerships, or influence your industry, you need a deeper bench of visible expertise. And it starts by identifying who your real experts are — not just the obvious ones. --- 7 Dimensions of Expertise Here are seven ways to think about expertise beyond the traditional credentials: Authority – Known as a go-to source in their domain. Advocate – Actively supports and elevates their professional community. Educator – Shares knowledge through teaching, speaking, or mentoring. Author – Publishes original insights or thought leadership content. Researcher – Contributes new data, analysis, or findings in their field. Practitioner – Applies knowledge in real-world contexts daily. Graduate – Has academic or technical training in a focus area. Not every expert is made for the stage or the media spotlight — and that’s okay. Some are best behind the scenes, helping create compelling content, briefing spokespeople, or surfacing insights from the field. Your job is to recognize the different ways people can contribute and make that part of your strategy. --- Visibility ≠ Seniority In the era of LinkedIn, personal branding, and AI-powered content, professional visibility is no longer tied to hierarchy. A mid-career professional, with a sharp take on current events might be more discoverable — and more in demand — than a long-tenured exec with little digital presence. That’s why organizations need to shift from thinking about expertise as a ladder, to thinking of it as an ecosystem. Not every expert wants to build a personal brand, but many are ready to contribute — if they’re supported and recognized. Here’s the truth: If you don’t tell your story, someone else will. And if you don’t help your experts show up in the right places — search engines, newsrooms, speaker directories, donor meetings — opportunities will go elsewhere. --- Give Your Experts a Digital Home Even after you've identified your internal experts, the next question is: Where do they live online? Too many organizations treat expert content like an afterthought — scattered across bio pages, outdated PDFs, or buried in press releases. To unlock the real value of your expertise, you need to give it a proper home. That means: Expert Profiles that showcase credentials, insights, and media-friendly info Expert Posts that surface their latest research, commentary, and thought leadership Searchable Directories that help media, partners, and the public find the right voice fast Inquiry Management tools that streamline incoming requests and drive results A centralized platform makes it easier for both internal teams and external audiences to discover, engage, and activate your expertise — whether it’s for media interviews, event invitations, donor conversations, or strategic partnerships. Without it, you're leaving visibility and value on the table. --- Is Your Organization Ready? Expertise is one of your most valuable and underutilized assets — but turning it into impact requires more than a list of names. You need to take stock of your internal bench strength, identify the experts who are ready to lead, and invest in the systems that make their voices heard. Start by asking: Who in our organization has untapped insight? Who’s already engaging audiences but flying under the radar? What tools, platforms, and support can we provide to amplify them? Recognizing your invisible experts is just the first step. Giving them a digital home and helping them engage with the right audiences — that’s how you turn knowledge into opportunity. Learn more about how ExpertFile helps organization's shine the light in these Invisible Experts.
Georgia Southern University announces Cassie N. Morgan as Vice President for Enrollment Management
A seasoned leader in higher education, Morgan brings nearly two decades of experience in strategic enrollment planning, student success and organizational leadership. She returns to Georgia Southern with a proven record of innovation and impact, having previously served as associate vice president for Enrollment Management, providing strategic oversight to Financial Aid, the Registrar’s Office, and Enrollment Services. Her leadership during that time contributed directly to steady enrollment growth, improved student service delivery, and the development of a comprehensive strategic enrollment plan. Morgan consistently champions data-informed strategies, operational excellence, staff development, and a deep commitment to student-centered services and leads with a strong commitment to collaboration, innovation and service excellence. She has held significant roles at Appalachian State University, Gadsden State, Liberty University, the University of North Alabama and the University of West Georgia. “Cassie is a dynamic and visionary leader whose experience and values align perfectly with our mission,” said Alejandra C. Sosa Pieroni, Ed.D., executive vice president for Enrollment, Marketing, and Student Success. “Her return brings invaluable leadership as we build on our success and accelerate progress toward enrollment goals. Cassie leads with clarity, purpose and a student-first mindset. We are thrilled to welcome her back to Eagle Nation.” In her new role at Georgia Southern, Morgan will lead the enrollment management unit, overseeing all facets of the enrollment lifecycle, including undergraduate and graduate admissions, financial aid and enrollment services, the registrar’s office, military and veteran services, and international student services. She will also play a key role in institutional planning, marketing alignment and collaboration with academic and system partners. “I’m truly honored to return to Georgia Southern in this pivotal leadership role,” said Morgan. “It’s a privilege to serve an institution I deeply respect and cherish. I’m grateful for the opportunity to help shape its future and to build on the momentum already in place. I couldn’t be more excited about what lies ahead and to once again be part of a community that means so much to me.” Morgan holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in education from the University of West Georgia. If you want to book time to talk or interview with Vice President for Enrollment Management, Cassie Morgan then let us help - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
ExpertSpotlight: The Ottawa Treaty, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
The Ottawa Treaty, formally known as the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, stands as one of the most impactful humanitarian disarmament agreements of the modern era. Signed in 1997 and led by Canada, the treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines—deadly remnants of war that continue to kill and maim civilians decades after conflicts end. The treaty’s global significance lies not only in its lifesaving goals but also in how it redefined international diplomacy by empowering civil society and survivors in disarmament efforts. As ongoing conflicts and global security threats evolve, revisiting the treaty’s legacy and future relevance is more important than ever. Journalists may find timely and meaningful angles through: The origins of the Ottawa Treaty and Canada’s leadership in humanitarian disarmament The continuing global impact of landmines and the status of mine clearance efforts Survivor stories and the long-term effects of landmine injuries on communities How the treaty reshaped international diplomacy and civil society’s role in negotiations The intersection of armed conflict, environmental degradation, and unexploded ordnance Countries that have not joined the treaty and the geopolitical implications This treaty is a powerful example of global cooperation aimed at protecting civilians, offering rich opportunities for human-interest stories and international policy analysis. Connect with our experts about the Ottawa Treaty and landmines Check out our other experts here : www.expertfile.com