Experts Matter. Find Yours.

#Expert Research: The Use of AI in Financial Reporting

Artificial intelligence (AI) is developing into an amazing tool to help humans across multiple fields, including medicine and research, and much of that work is happening at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Financial reporting and auditing are both areas where AI can have a significant impact as companies and audit firms are rapidly adopting the use of such technology. But are financial managers willing to rely on the results of AI-generated information? In the context of audit adjustments, it depends on whether their company uses AI as well. Willing to Rely on AI? Cassandra Estep, assistant professor of accounting at Goizueta Business School, and her co-authors have a forthcoming study looking at financial managers’ perceptions of the use of AI, both within their companies and by their auditors. Research had already been done on how financial auditors react to using AI for evaluating complex financial reporting. That got Estep and her co-authors thinking there’s more to the story. “A big, important part of the financial reporting and auditing process is the managers within the companies being audited. We were interested in thinking about how they react to the use of AI by their auditors,” Estep says. “But then we also started thinking about what companies are investing in AI as well. That joint influence of the use of AI, both within the companies and by the auditors that are auditing the financials of those companies, is where it all started.” The Methodology Estep and her co-authors conducted a survey and experiment with senior-level financial managers with titles like CEO, CFO, or Controller – the people responsible for making financial reporting decisions within companies. The survey included questions to understand how companies are using AI. It also included open-ended questions designed to identify key themes about financial managers’ perceptions of AI use by their companies and their auditors. In the experiment, participants completed a hypothetical case in which they were asked about their willingness to record a downward adjustment to the fair value of a patent proposed by their auditors. The scenarios varied across randomly assigned conditions as to whether the auditor did or not did not use AI in coming up with the proposed valuation and adjustment, and whether their company did or did not use AI in generating their estimated value of the patent. When both the auditor and the company used AI, participants were willing to record a larger adjustment amount, i.e., decrease the value of the patent more. The authors find that these results are driven by increased perceptions of accuracy. It’s not necessarily a comfort thing, but a signal from the company that this is an acceptable way to do things, and it actually caused them to perceive the auditors’ information as more accurate and of higher quality. Cassandra Estep, assistant professor of accounting “Essentially, they viewed the auditors’ recommendation for adjusting the numbers to be more accurate and of higher quality, and so they were more willing to accept the audit adjustment,” Estep says. Making Financial Reporting More Efficient Financial reporting is a critical process in any business. Companies and investors need timely and accurate information to make important decisions. With the added element of AI, financial reporting processes can include more external data. We touched on the idea that these tools can hopefully process a lot more information and data. For example, we’ve seen auditors and managers talk about using outside information. Cassandra Estep “Auditors might be able to use customer reviews and feedback as one of the inputs to deciding how much warranty expense the company should be estimating. And is that amount reasonable? The idea is that if customers are complaining, there could be some problem with the products.” Adding data to analytical processes, when done by humans alone, adds a significant amount of time to the calculations. Research from the European Spreadsheets Risks Interest Group says that more than 90% of all financial spreadsheets contain at least one error. Some forms of AI can process hundreds of thousands of calculations overnight, typically with fewer errors. In short, it can be more efficient. Efficiency was brought up a lot in our survey, the idea that things could be done faster with AI. Cassandra Estep “We also asked the managers about their perspective on the audit side, and they did hope that audit fees would go down, because auditors would be able to do things more quickly and efficiently as well,” Estep says. “But the flip side of that is that using AI could also raise more questions and more issues that have to be investigated. There’s also the potential for more work.” The Fear of Being Replaced The fear of being replaced is a more or less universal worry for anyone whose industry is beginning to adopt the use of AI in some form. While the respondents in Estep’s survey looked forward to more efficient and effective handling of complex financial reporting by AI, they also emphasized the need to keep the human element involved in any decisions made using AI. What we were slightly surprised about was the positive reactions that the managers had in our survey. While some thought the use of AI was inevitable, there’s this idea that it can make things better. Cassandra Estep “But there’s still a little bit of trepidation,” Estep says. “One of the key themes that came up was yes, we need to use these tools. We should take advantage of them to improve the quality and the efficiency with which we do things. But we also need to keep that human element. At the end of the day, humans need to be responsible. Humans need to be making the decisions.” A Positive Outlook The benefits of AI were clear to the survey participants. They recognized it as a positive trend, whether or not it was currently used in their financial reporting. If they weren’t regularly using AI, they expected to be using it soon. I think one of the most interesting things to us about this paper is this idea that AI can be embraced. Companies and auditors are still somewhat in their infancy of figuring out how to use it, but big investments are being made. Cassandra Estep “And then, again, there’s the fact that our experiment also shows a situation where managers were willing to accept the auditors’ proposed adjustments. This arguably goes against their incentives as management to keep the numbers more positive or optimistic,” Estep continues. “The auditors are serving that role of helping managers provide more reliable financial information, and that can be viewed as a positive outcome.” “There’s still some hesitation. We’re still figuring out these tools. We see examples all the time of where AI has messed up, or put together false information. But I think the positive sentiment across our survey participants, and then also the results of our experiment, reinforce the idea that AI can be a good thing and that it can be embraced. Even in a setting like financial reporting and auditing, where there can be fear of job replacement, the focus on the human-technology interaction can hopefully lead to improved situations.” Cassandra Estep, is an assistant professor of accounting at Goizueta Business School, and a co-author of the forthcoming study looking at financial managers’ perceptions of the use of AI. She's available to speak about this important topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Video Insights: How Senior Management Teams Can Respond to Tariffs

Companies around the world are facing increasing uncertainty brought on by the unpredictable and rapid shifts in tariff policies. As a result, corporate leaders are seeking ways to adapt and respond to the sudden and unprecedented changes in the international trade landscape. In this video, Brian Gleason, John Peiserich, James E. Malackowski, and Livia Paggi – experts in turnaround, supply chain, intellectual property, and political risk – discuss key strategies for senior management teams to address evolving tariff policies, including: • Updating business forecasts and understanding company liquidity • How companies can optimize their intellectual property (IP) value and mitigate risk • How to approach the unique risks associated with planning and permitting for capital projects • How to manage geopolitical volatility from shifting tariffs in the dealmaking process To view more of our Tariffs and Trade Series expert analysis and commentary, visit: Looking to know more or connect with John Peiserich, Livia Paggi and James E. Malackowski? Simply click on either expert's icon now to arrange an interview today. If you are looking to connect with Brian Gleason - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com

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.

Do We Need to Worry About Safety at the United States' Busiest Airports?

For the second time in two weeks, air traffic controllers directing planes into the Newark, New Jersey, airport briefly lost their radar. The outages have sparked travel chaos, with hundreds of flight delays and cancellations after the FAA slowed air traffic to ensure safety.  The country's aging air traffic control system is in the spotlight. Media, politicians and the public are demanding both solutions for the system and answers on how safe traveling is at the moment. To provide insight, Florida Tech's Margaret Wallace is lending her expert opinion and perspective on the issue. Margaret Wallace is Assistant Professor of Aviation Management at Florida Institute of Technology, where she teaches Air Traffic Control and Airport Management courses. She spent over 15 years in the industry prior to teaching as an Airport Manager (4 years) at Ramstein Air Base in Germany and an Air Traffic Controller (10+ years) in the U.S. Air Force. “The recent communication failure at Newark Liberty International Airport has raised serious concerns about the safety and dependability of air traffic control systems in the United States. On April 28, 2025, the Newark air traffic facilities lost all radio communication with approximately 20 airplanes for up to 90 seconds due to an equipment breakdown. During the outage, pilots and controllers were unable to communicate. Controllers were unable to maintain aircraft separation during crucial flight phases, and pilots were unable to receive air traffic clearances and instructions. Situations like this, as well as aircraft incidents, bring stress and trauma to the controller's mental state. Most people cannot fathom how much mental stress the controller experiences in everyday job settings. Situations with defective equipment, combined with lengthy work hours due to a scarcity of controllers, appear to have taken their toll based on the fact that several controllers have taken leave for mental stress. This situation posed a safety risk to all planes and passengers. Fortunately, there were no incidents, and everyone remained safe. However, this demonstrated some of the flaws in the outdated air traffic system equipment. Sean Duffy, the new Transportation Secretary, has acknowledged the critical need to improve our current technology. While air travel is generally safe, our current administration must continue to prioritize the upgrade of air traffic systems and increasing the staffing in air traffic facilities. To ensure safety, I believe we should consider having airlines restrict the number of flights available and the Air Route Traffic Command Center to introduce delays to avoid overloading the system.” Margaret Wallace If you're interested in connecting with Margaret Wallace about the ongoing issues at airports across the country, let us help. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology, at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.

#Expert Insight: Decoding Hierarchies in Business: When is Having a Boss a Benefit for an Organization?

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.

Aston University researcher to help uncover hidden impact of painkiller overuse among older people

The HOPE-AO project led by the University of Plymouth will look at the potential harms of overprescribed pain medication in older people in the UK Aston University’s Professor Ian Maidment will bring his expertise in pharmacy and work with patient groups on medicine optimisation The project has been funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) A new study led by the University of Plymouth will explore chronic pain prescribing in older adults across the UK, with the aim of understanding whether current treatments and processes meet their needs. The HOPE-AO: Helping to Optimise Pain control in the Elderly experiencing Analgesic Overprescribing project is being supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and includes Aston University’s Professor Ian Maidment. It will investigate whether certain groups of the older population are more likely to have analgesic (pain relief) medication overprescribed to them, and any side effects or other harms these medications can pose if taken for long periods. It aims to identify alternative treatment solutions to reduce the use of unnecessary pain medicines, working with patients to develop a list of acceptable strategies that could be tested and implemented across the UK. Around 4m older people across the UK live with varying degrees of chronic pain as a result of conditions including arthritis, diabetes or frailty. While some people benefit from pain relief medicines, many end up receiving long-term repeated prescriptions – for medications ranging from paracetamol and ibuprofen to opioids and antidepressants – for weeks, months or years at a time. The project is being led by researchers from the University of Plymouth, working with colleagues at the University of Exeter, Aston University, University of Aberdeen and the North East London Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded by through a Programme Development Grant from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The project team comprises experts in the care of older people – including healthcare researchers, nurses, consultants, GPs, pharmacists and psychiatrists working across the UK – as well as medical statisticians and health economists. It also involves an advisory group of patients with lived experience of receiving repeat prescriptions for pain medication. During the project, the team will speak to patients aged 65 and over with a history of chronic pain for which they are taking, or have taken, medication and families who cared for and supported relatives with chronic pain. They will also speak to healthcare professionals who are either prescribing or supporting older adults taking medication for chronic pain management. Alongside this work, the team will analyse anonymised healthcare data to understand more about older adults who are prescribed medication for chronic pain. This includes patterns in prescribing, health and demographic factors associated with pain medication use, and potential health outcomes, and will help identify those likely to benefit most from support. Professor Maidment, from Aston Pharmacy School, will bring his expertise in pharmacy, medication use in day-to-day clinical practice and working with diverse groups of patients to support medication optimisation. He said: “From my experience in community pharmacy, the use of pain medicines is very common in older people. We need to work with older people to understand how we can help older people to use other potentially safer approaches.” Patricia Schofield, professor of clinical nursing at the University of Plymouth and one of the study’s chief investigators, said: “Very often, older people are told by a doctor that the most effective means of treating a health condition is through some form of pain relief. But they often don’t get any form of follow-up appointment and, as a generation, are less likely to seek one as they either feel pain is part of the ageing process or they don’t wish to be seen as a burden. The result is that they end up getting repeat prescriptions, potentially for pain medications they no longer need and also at significant cost to the NHS. “This study will give us a clearer understanding of the scale of the issue which we can use to develop ways of benefitting patients and their families, and the healthcare professionals working to treat and support them.” Victoria Abbott-Fleming MBE, founder of the charity Burning Nights CRPS Support, is the chair of the Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group for the HOPE-AO study. It will be made up of several adults over the age of 65 who live with chronic pain and have received repeat prescriptions for pain medication. Victoria has herself lived for more than 20 years with a chronic pain condition, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), and set up Burning Nights to support those affected by it on a day-to-day basis and their families. She is also chair of the Expert Patient and Carer Committee at the British Pain Society. She said: “I’m excited to support this study that places the voices of older adults and their carers at the heart of pain management. All too often, those living with chronic pain – especially older adults – are prescribed medication without regular review or consideration of alternative approaches. This study is a vital step towards more informed and balanced care, helping ensure that older people living with chronic pain are not just treated, but truly heard and supported.”

Retro Appeal: Research Reveals the Reasons Behind Vintage Shopping in Turbulent Times

Why buy vintage? Reasons abound. It’s kinder to the environment. It’s usually cheaper. It’s back in style. But did you know it may also address a deep-seated psychological need for stability amid upheavals? Vintage consumption—that is, buying previously owned items from an earlier era—acts as a means to connect the past, present, and future. That connection across time can be reassuring, most especially in times of uncertainty. When you really want to buy a leather jacket that’s older than you are, it may be enlightening to consider the circumstances. This vintage insight reveals itself in research by Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing at Goizueta Business School. In an award-winning article titled “Stitching time: Vintage consumption connects the past, present, and future,” Hamilton—along with coauthors Gulen Sarial-Abi, Kathleen Vohs, and Aulona Ulqinaku—uncovered why we may want to turn to something old when we perceive threats to our worldviews. Notably, multiple studies have shown thoughts of death to increase the appeal of items that have already stood the test of time. The Psychological Appeal of Thrifting In psychology, “meaning frameworks” are how we, as human beings, interpret and understand our lives as meaningful and valuable. Threats to our meaning frameworks—i.e., the pillars propping up our worldviews—can include thoughts of death, unsettling economic upheavals, and other existential challenges. In order to explore the effects of meaning threats on our preference for vintage, Hamilton and coauthors designed several studies. Their pilot test measured the physical health of nursing home residents. It then measured their preferences for vintage items, controlling for other variables. The results held up the researchers’ hypothesis: Vintage items—be they books, watches, bicycles, or luggage—were more strongly preferred over their modern versions by elderly participants in poorer health, presumably those most likely to have mortality on their minds. Six subsequent studies used different variables to see if the main hypothesis continued to hold up. It did, while at the same time revealing more information about the mechanisms at work. Ryan Hamilton Associate Professor of Marketing Death or Dental Pain In one study, for example, researchers prompted participants with death reminders. They had to contemplate and write about their own deaths to make sure mortality was top of mind. Researchers prompted a control group with reminders of dental pain. Both groups then answered a 12-question survey about their desire for structure (e.g., set routines and practices) at that particular moment. But there was another element in this study: contemplating wearing a watch from the 1950s. As predicted by the main hypothesis, death cues were associated with participants reporting that they desired more structure. The only exceptions was for those who imagined an old watch ticking on their wrists. Vintage consumption seemed to act as a buffer against unsettling thoughts of death for them. What is going on here? As noted above, the researchers theorize and show that vintage objects tend to connect our thoughts of the past, present, and future. These mental, intertemporal connections tend to be reassuring—“a hidden factor” in our preferences and choices, as Hamilton notes. More than Nostalgia One might think nostalgia—a sentimental longing for the past—could also be at work. Feeling nostalgic for one’s own past and social connections can buffer against meaning threats, as previous research has shown. But this paper was designed to tease out nostalgia. It focused on vintage’s connections across time regardless of one’s personal experiences. “This study allowed us to clearly show that people respond differently to something they believe to be old,” as Hamilton explains. “It’s not just something that has a retro look, which was one of my favorite aspects of this project.” Hamilton and his coauthors achieved this by having participants evaluate identical items thought to be genuinely vintage or replicas. And the results were robust. Retro replicas, which can prompt nostalgia, did not have the same psychological impact as items believed to be genuinely old. For instance, 20-year-olds who find a watch from the 1950s reassuring can’t feel nostalgic about the design personally. They can, however, feel a connection across time—and that came through in the study. Retail Therapy on the Rise? Hamilton’s research here follows his broader interest in consumer psychology, branding, and decision-making. “When we’re buying things, we may think it’s based on strict utility maximization. However, it also might be making us feel better in some way,” says Hamilton. Shopping can serve as an emotional management strategy—for better or for worse. Although it was outside the scope of this particular investigation (and all participants were over age 18), the insights gleaned here may help explain why 21st-century teenagers seem to be particularly avid “thrifters” these days. “I don’t want to overstate our findings. But it’s at least possible that the appeal of vintage for teenagers is boltstered by a sense of permanence and endurance that helps them during times of upheaval,” Hamilton says. It turns out a 30-year-old leather jacket might help its new owner feel better on many levels. So is it any wonder that vintage shopping is surging in uncertain times? Fashion magazines, such as Vogue and GQ, are following the vintage craze closely in 2024. Concern for climate change and the Earth’s finite resources may present two intertwined reasons to buy old things: those two things are environmental and psychological. If tumultuous times continue amid contentious elections, wars, and other threats, it seems safe to bet on vintage. Ryan Hamilton is associate professor of Marketing at Emory University - Goizueta Business School. If you're a journalist looking to know about this topic, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.