Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
ExpertSpotlight: Today is Women’s Equality Day
Women’s Equality Day on August 26 marks a pivotal moment in history, celebrating the anniversary of the 19th Amendment’s adoption, which granted women the right to vote in the United States. This day is not just a commemoration of past achievements but a call to address the ongoing challenges women face in achieving full equality. From wage gaps and representation in leadership to reproductive rights and gender-based violence, the fight for women’s equality continues to be a crucial issue in today’s society. This topic is significant as it highlights both the progress made and the work still needed to ensure true equality for all women. Key story angles that journalists might explore include: The evolution of women’s rights since the 19th Amendment and the ongoing struggle for gender equality. Current challenges women face in the workforce, including wage disparity and underrepresentation in leadership roles. The role of women in politics and the importance of female representation in government. Intersectionality in the women’s rights movement: how race, class, and other identities intersect with gender. The impact of recent legal decisions and legislation on women’s reproductive rights. Celebrations and events surrounding Women’s Equality Day across the country. This alert emphasizes the importance of reflecting on both historical achievements and current challenges, making it a compelling topic for coverage. Connect with an expert about Women’s Equality Day: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com
Olympics 2024: Expert details the danger of headings in soccer
One of the most popular Olympic sports is soccer, and one of its most exciting plays – headers – is more commonly deployed by international teams. Given the risk of concussions during that play, experts like the University of Delaware's Thomas Kaminski will be watching the event closely during the 2024 Summer Games. Kaminski, professor of kinesiology and applied physiology in UD's College of Health Sciences, is a leading expert on concussions in soccer and serves as the sole U.S. representative on the FIFA Heading Expert Group. “FIFA is concerned about the disparity in concussions between men and women,” Kaminski said. “Women are at a higher risk of concussion due to a variety of reasons, including neck strength and overall body strength.” Concussions often occur during aerial challenges. “When players compete for the ball at the same time, they need to use their body to protect their head space, taking the strain off the head,” Kaminski said. Expect the ball to be in the air quite a bit in Olympic competition. “Many international teams tend to play the ball in the air more, but the USA will be ready for that. They know what to do,” Kaminski said. What to keep an eye out for: “Anytime a ball is scored from a header, it’s a picture of beauty in the game,” Kaminski said.
#Expert Insight: Political Fandom
The 2024 Presidential campaign has been a roller coaster ride this summer. The upheavals are so fast and unprecedented that the reaction to each event often seems too muted. An assassination attempt and sudden pre-convention withdrawal? In a past generation, these events would be decisive, but in 2024, they seem like just the latest blip in the news cycle. The polls never seem to move more than a couple of points. In such an oddly volatile but also stable environment, our best bet to understanding what is going to transpire during the last 100 days of the election cycle is to look at data that gets to the heart of how voters view the candidates. My choice of fundamental data or essential metric is candidate fandom. Fandom is an unusual metric in politics, but it should be more common. Fandom is about passion for and loyalty to a cultural entity, be it a team, singer, university, or even politician. In fact, MAGA Trump supporters and Bernie Bros share many characteristics with Swifties and Lakers fans. Fans of all these things show up, spend, wear branded apparel, and fiercely defend the object of their fandom. The politicians who inspire fandom, such as AOC, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Marjorie Taylor Green, enjoy many advantages and are the celebrities of the political world. Fandom is critical in politics because fans are loyal, engaged, and resilient. Fans are not casual potential voters who may change preferences and are unlikely to make an effort to stand in line to vote. Fans are the voters who will show up rain or shine and who can’t be swayed. In 2024, a fan will interpret a conviction of their candidate as political “lawfare” rather than evidence of criminality. Also, in 2024, a fan will make excuses for signs of aging that would result in children taking a senior’s car keys. The flip side of fandom, anti-fandom, is also a powerful political force. Indeed, politics may be the cultural context in which anti-fandom has the most impact. Taylor Swift may have haters, but these anti-Swifties are not buying tickets to see Katy Perry in protest. But in politics, hatred of a candidate might be as powerful a tool for generating a vote as fandom. Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was notoriously bad at drawing crowds, suggesting he inspired little passion. In contrast, Trump’s rallies looked like rabid sports crowds complete with matching hats. However, the hatred and fear of Donald Trump inspired sufficient anti-fandom to make Biden competitive. Of course, fandom doesn’t entirely decide elections. In most elections, there isn’t all that much fandom or passion. Beyond the presidency and senatorial contests, most candidates are barely known, and identity factors (race, gender, party affiliation) and candidate awareness are the determining factors. Even in presidential elections, get-out-the-vote efforts (ballot harvesting) and election regulations (voter suppression) combined with effective marketing to the few percent of swing (low information) voters are often the determining factors. Looking toward the future, fandom may be an increasingly salient political metric for multiple reasons. First, the last two decades have witnessed many candidates raised quickly from obscurity with somehow Hollywood-worthy origin stories (Barack Obama, AOC, JD Vance, etc.). In the modern media environment, candidates’ reputations (brands) are increasingly the product of marketing narratives rather than a lifetime of real-world accomplishments. In this new world of politics, fandom will be a critical metric. Second, with the increasing diversity of the American electorate, voting will be increasingly based on identity rather than ideology. Identity-based voting segments are likely to be driven by fandom (and anti-fandom) rather than policy. We see a form of this in 2024, as high inflation has barely made a dent in voters’ preferences for the two parties. A fragmented electorate comprised of racial and gender segments whose preferences are driven by fandom and anti-fandom will lead to increasingly negative campaigns featuring ads highlighting the threat of the non-preferred party’s candidates. When voters are focused on identity, negative advertising becomes the ideal method to use fear to create anti-fandom (hate) to motivate turnout. Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump Barring further disruptions, the matchup is set for the 2024 presidential contest (as of this writing, we do not know the Democratic VP). We do know the matchup between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is a contest between polarizing figures. Donald Trump is a movement candidate who has redefined the Republican party. He inspires passionate fandom from his followers and amazing antipathy from major media and cultural outlets. Harris is also polarizing. In the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal, Harris received massive media and donor support. However, Harris has not demonstrated any significant national voter appeal, and her time as VP has generated ample blooper real material. My approach to assessing the race is to examine each candidate's fandom and anti-fandom. Fandom is the candidate’s core, resilient support, while anti-fandom is about antipathy. Fandom and anti-fandom are especially powerful metrics for a candidate because they are relatively fixed after a candidate gains high awareness. Once an individual identifies with the candidate (e.g., they are on the same team), an attack on the candidate is an attack on the individual. This means attack ads do not work because fans feel they are being attacked. Anti-fans are also important because they constrain a candidate’s support. A Trump anti-fan is unpersuadable by efforts from the Trump campaign because their identity is steeped in opposition to him. Fans and anti-fans are trapped in a cycle of confirmation bias where all information is processed to fit their fandom. I use data from the Next Generation Fandom Survey to assess candidate fandom and anti-fandom. The Next Generation Fandom Survey involves a nationwide sample of the U.S. population regarding fandom for sports and other cultural entities. In the 2024 edition, political figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and RFK Jr were included. The survey captured responses from 2053 subjects split evenly across the four primary generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers), and the sample is representative in terms of racial background. The survey does not focus on likely or registered voters, so the results reflect overall societal sentiments rather than the electorate's opinions. The critical survey question asks subjects to rate how much of a fan they are of a celebrity on a 1 to 7 scale. In the following discussion, individuals who rated their fandom a 6 or 7 on the 7-point scale are categorized as Fans, while those who rate their fandom a 1 or 2 are classified as Anti-Fans. Table 1 shows the Fandom and Anti-Fandom rates for the entire sample. Donald Trump has a 27% fandom rate compared to Harris's 21%. The fandom rate is crucial because it identifies the candidate's core support. It also indicates something important about the candidate’s potential likability. In terms of anti-fandom, Harris has a slightly higher Anti-Fandom rate. Anti-Fandom is also critical as it shows the percentage of people who hate a candidate. The data suggests that Americans find Harris to be more dislikable than Trump. Notably, the anti-fandom rates are significantly higher than the fandom rates. The American public has significant disdain for politicians. The high anti-fandom rates are both the product of past negative advertising and the cause of future negative campaign strategies. Table 1: Candidate Fandom and Anti-Fandom Table 2 reports fandom rates based of the two gender segments. Trump has a 7%-point advantage with men and a surprising 4% advantage with women. This is a stunning result as Trump is generally regarded as having weakness with female voters. However, this weakness shows up in the anti-fandom rates. In the male segment, Trump has a 5%-point advantage in anti-fandom (fewer anti-fans), but a 3% disadvantage in the female segment. This reveals that Trump is polarizing to women, and almost half of women find Trump to be highly dislikable. This finding is why the Harris campaign is likely to use advertising that casts Trump as misogynistic or a threat to women to motivate turnout by female voters. Table 2: Candidate Fandom by Gender Table 3 shows the fandom rates for the two younger demographic segments: Gen Z and Millennials. This Table also shows Trump’s relative performance versus Biden (in parentheses in the last column). Trump enjoys higher fandom and lower anti-fandom than Harris in both the Gen Z and Millennial segments. In terms of fandom, Trump is plus 6% in Gen Z and plus 11% with Millennials. Critically, Harris outperforms Biden. The Gen Z anti-fandom gap between Trump and Biden favored Trump by 6% points. However, this gap shrinks to just 1% point when Harris is the comparison. The data suggests that Harris is stronger with Gen Z than Biden. Table 3: Candidate Fandom in Younger Generations Table 4 reports the fandom rates based on a racial segmentation scheme. Specifically, the sample is divided into White and Non-White categories. This is a crude segmentation, but it illustrates some essential points. Trump enjoys a significant 14% positive fandom advantage in the White demographic. He also enjoys a 10-point edge in (lower) anti-fandom. The pattern essentially reverses in the Non-White segment, as Harris has a 10-point advantage in fandom and a 17-point edge in anti-fandom. Trump’s anti-fandom in the Non-White segment is critical to the campaign. Nearly half of this segment has antipathy or hate for Trump. This high anti-fandom suggests an opportunity for the Harris campaign to emphasize racial angles in their attacks on Trump. Table 4: Candidate Fandom by Race In addition to fandom and anti-fandom rates across demographic categories, insights can be gleaned by looking at segmentation variables that reflect cultural values or personality. Table 5 shows fandom and anti-fandom rates for Trump and Harris for segments defined by fandom for Taylor Swift (Swifties) and Baseball. The Swifties skew towards Harris. The implication is that young women engaged in popular culture have more positive fandom for Harris and more negativity toward Trump. This is unsurprising given the content of the popular culture and Swift’s personal liberalism. The Swiftie segment shows a much stronger skew for Harris than all but the Non-White segment. Examining the data at a cultural level is vital as it indicates that it isn’t necessarily youth or gender where Harris has an advantage but a combination of youth, gender, and a specific type of cultural engagement. The table also includes fandom rates for baseball fans. In the Baseball Fan segment, Trump enjoys an 8% point fandom advantage and a 7% anti-fandom advantage (lower anti-fandom). Like the case of the Swifties, the fandom rates of Baseball Fans reveal something about Trump’s core support. Baseball is a very traditional game with an older fan base, and traditionalism is probably the core value of Trump fans. Trump’s negative advertising is likely to focus on the threats to traditional values (i.e., Harris is a San Francisco liberal). Table 5: Candidate Fandom and Cultural Segments Commentary and Prediction Fandom is a powerful metric for predicting political success, but like most data points, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Fandom is a measure of unwavering core support while anti-fandom measures the group that will never support and is likely to show up to vote against a candidate. Examining fandom rates across multiple segments reveals that Harris’ core support is concentrated in specific cultural and racial segments. The analysis also suggests that Trump's core support is broader than is usually acknowledged and that his main problem is significant anti-fandom with women and minorities. Harris’ problem is a lack of love, while Trump’s is too much hate. Notably, I am not paying too much attention to the current wave of excitement and enthusiasm surrounding Harris. The recent enthusiasm is likely more a manifestation of the Democratic base’s hopes and a relentless media onslaught than an actual increase in passion for Harris. Maybe there will be a permanent shift upward in Harris’s fandom, but I don’t see any logic for why this would occur. Harris isn’t suddenly more likable or aspirational than she was last month. The argument that the American people are becoming more acquainted with her is dubious, given that she has been the Vice President or a major presidential candidate for almost five years. What are the implications for the upcoming election? Voting is not only about fandom or hate, so we must consider some additional factors. For instance, many potential voters lack passion and knowledge and are more prone to vote based on identity rather than ideology. If a region or demographic segment consistently votes for a party 75% of the time, that’s voting more based on fixed identities than current societal conditions. The American electorate has many of these types of fixed-preference voter segments. Furthermore, as the American electorate becomes more diverse, identity-based voting seems to be making presidential contests more predictable. The baseline seems to be that the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by a few percentage points, and the Electoral College will come down to a few states, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Examining past electoral maps shows far more shifting of states across elections. Now, all but a handful of states are regarded as non-competitive. The Figure below shows the presidential popular vote margins for the last 50 years. It shows a trend towards smaller margins for the winning candidate, which is at least partly due to growing ethnic diversity and more fixed (at least in the near and medium terms) identity-based voting. Over the last 13 cycles, the margin of victory has dropped by about 1% every four years. Demographic change has also locked in a high baseline level of support for Democratic candidates. The last time a Republican won the popular vote was in 2004, with George Bush as the incumbent. Figure 1: Presidential Vote Margin 1972 to 2020 In addition to shrinking election margins, demographic change promises to change future campaign tones. The increasing relevance of fandom and anti-fandom, combined with the growing diversity of the electorate, will make 2024 an extremely negative campaign. The 2024 election will be determined by identity-based demographic trends and negative (anti-fandom) marketing campaigns. Demographics are destiny, and America is changing rapidly in ways that make it increasingly difficult for the Republicans to win the popular vote. It doesn’t matter if the Democrat is Harris, Newsom, Clinton, or Whitmer while the Republican is Rubio, Haley, Cruz, or Burgum. The baseline is probably 52% to 48%, D to R. Candidate fandom and anti-fandom probably shift the vote 2 or 3 percent in either direction. The correlation of demographic traits with voting behaviors creates incentives for campaign strategies that focus on identity. Republicans are eager to shift some percentage of Black or Hispanic voters to their cause because it simultaneously reduces the Democrats' base and grows Republican totals. In contrast, Democrats need to motivate marginal voters in the female, Black, and Hispanic segments to turn out. Fear-based appeals are the most effective tool for both parties' goals. Negative messaging is also prevalent because of the general view of politicians. Politicians tend to inspire more antipathy (anti-fandom) than admiration (fandom). The fandom data shows this, as both candidates have far more anti-fans than fans (this holds with other politicians) . The modern election calculus is, therefore, focused on aggressive negative ads that inspire marginal voters to take the initiative to vote against a hated candidate. Passion drives behavior, and it's far easier to drive fear and hatred of a candidate than to inspire passion and admiration. Considering the fandom data and the current electorate, I have two predictions. First, we will witness an incredibly nasty race. Harris’s best bet is to demonize Trump to motivate the anti-Trump voters to turn out. The American culture of 2024 includes constant repetition that many Democratic voting constituencies are marginalized and threatened. These segments are best motivated by using messages that cast the Republicans as the danger or oppressor. Women will fear losing reproductive rights, and African Americans will be primed with threats to voting rights. Trump will also employ negative messaging, but Trump’s adoption of a negative campaign comes from a slightly different motivation. Trump’s core support consists of conservatives who are frustrated by a lack of cultural power and representation. This group is looking for someone who will fight for their values. This desire for a “fighting advocate” explains much of Trump’s appeal, as his supporters are enthusiastic about his “mean tweets and nicknames.” There will also be fear-based advertising as Harris will be positioned as wanting to defund police and open the border. Second, Trump wins in a close contest. Comparing Trump’s and Harris’ fandom and anti-fandom suggests the Harris campaign faces an uphill challenge. Despite the current blitz of enthusiasm for Harris as a replacement for a failing Joe Biden, her “brand” has not shown an ability to stimulate passion, and her dislike levels exceed Trump's. It seems unlikely that she will be able to inspire fans. While Trump has a significant fanbase and weaknesses in terms of strong anti-fandom levels in minority and cultural segments, he probably beat Clinton in 2016 because her anti-fandom was equivalent to his. In contrast, he lost to Biden because Biden had less anti-fandom (in 2020). Kamala Harris seems more like Clinton than Biden, so look for a similar outcome as in 2016. The bottom-line prediction: An exceptionally negative campaign, with Trump’s greater baseline fandom and Harris’s charisma deficit leading to a narrow Trump victory. As in 2016,Trump wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. Addendum: Future Fandom Lesson The structure of the American electorate and the propensity of people to vote based on identity rather than ideology mean that negative campaigns are the standard in the near future. The essential observation is that demographic trends create an electorate that is more a collection of identity segments than a homogeneous population that varies in ideology. An increasingly diverse electorate likely means increasingly negative presidential campaigns as negative or fear-based appeals are especially effective when elections focus on threats to identity groups. The tragedy of this situation is that the negative messages of campaigns amplify racial division and acrimony. When the next election occurs, the electorate is even more polarized, and negative or fear-based appeals are again the most effective. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.
Veronica Chandler’s north Wilmington home is her sanctuary, and it shows. From the soft instrumental music to the scent of lavender to the comfy seats that invite visitors to put up their feet, the message is clear – rest, relax, recharge. Original artwork by Veronica Chandler In this space, Chandler celebrates her rediscovered self, and it’s a journey she shares with all who visit. Part of the cozy feeling in her home comes from the artwork that lines the walls – mostly her own paintings and drawings created over the last six years as she navigates the challenges and triumphs of motherhood and discovers new ways to care for herself and those she loves. After experiencing anxiety, panic attacks and profound depression following the birth of her daughter in 2018, Chandler sought help at the ChristianaCare Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness, where a combination of medication and therapy helped her feel healthier and reconnected. She also returned to a former passion – art. “When I started painting, I found a way of silencing my brain, of calming it down. Being able to just focus on one thing on its own let my body regulate my nervous system,” she said. “I didn’t know what was happening to me. I just felt amazing.” More than ‘baby blues’ Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders are among the most common complications that occur in pregnancy or in the first year after delivery, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Although many parents experience feelings of anxiety, fatigue and sadness in the first days with a new baby, postpartum depression can occur several months after childbirth. Symptoms are often more severe and can include extreme stress. Despite increased awareness efforts in recent years, perinatal mood and anxiety disorders – including postpartum depression, which occurs in up to 20% of all births – remain underdiagnosed, untreated or undertreated, even though the health impact extends beyond the person giving birth, said Malina Spirito, Psy.D., MEd, director of the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. The center opened in 2013 to help patients and their loved ones understand the challenges associated with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders. Since then, the program has tripled the number of clinicians and expanded services to include inpatient and outpatient consultations, ongoing psychotherapy and psychiatric medication management. “Just because we know something is common does not mean we have to put up with it, especially because the effects will be lasting if we don’t address them,” Spirito said. “Perinatal mood disorders have an impact on the overall health of a family. When a mom feels better, the relationships they have with the people around them are better as well.” Breaking the ‘super mom’ stereotype Looking back, Chandler recognizes her struggles with sleeping and anxiety following the birth of her first child may have been signs of postpartum depression. The symptoms went away only to return after her daughter was born two years later. Veronica Chandler sought help from the ChristianaCare Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness for postpartum depression. Caring for herself helped her rediscover her love of creating art. Although overjoyed by her growing family, Chandler deeply missed her mother, who lived in her native Ecuador. Added to those challenges were longer stays in the hospital for Chandler, who had a Caesarean section birth, and for her daughter, who had some minor health issues. In the weeks after giving birth, Chandler battled dizziness caused by anemia. Though exhausted by caring for a newborn, she couldn’t sleep. She constantly felt on edge, and her skin itched without relief. Worried when her symptoms didn’t abate after three months, Chandler’s husband broached the idea of postpartum depression. For Chandler, it was a relief another person noticed something was wrong, but she was scared to think about what might be needed to get better. “I think we’re programmed by our cultures and by our beliefs to think that we need to be ‘super moms’ and give everything we have,” said Chandler, who grew up in Ecuador and moved to the United States after marrying her husband. “I was in such a fog that I didn’t know I could still shine and be happy and content. The default for so many moms is to pour until there’s nothing left.” ‘Rediscovering who I was’ Chandler sought help at the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness and soon began taking an anti-depressant as part of her treatment. She also saw a therapist to talk about the feelings she was experiencing. “Therapy was such a big part of this whole journey of rediscovering who I was. When you talk and someone listens, you figure things out,” Chandler said. While on a trip to Arizona with a cousin, Chandler discovered kachina dolls, a Native American art form often used to provide guidance to young people and instill the connection between nature and the spirit. The intricately designed images further fueled Chandler’s reignited passion for art. That passion helped Chandler manage the additional challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic when her anxiety and depression resurfaced. Using painting, sculpture and other media, she has examined her own feelings relating to motherhood, family and society. Her work has been featured internationally in Vogue and closer to home in local art galleries. “Some people like to cook, and some people like to write. Art is my creative outlet that allowed me to come back to who I am,” she said. “We all have to release that creativity in some way.” Entering care sooner While the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness has always focused on pregnant and postpartum patients, it has grown to address mental health needs related to preconception health, including artificial reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization, Spirito said. The center also sees patients grieving a pregnancy or neonatal loss. More people are thinking about their mental health before they give birth, said Malina Spirito, Psy.D., MEd, director of the ChristianaCare Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. “One of the most notable observations I’ve seen over the years is that birthing people are entering care sooner. It isn’t uncommon for women to seek out consultation prior to getting pregnant about how to manage their mood disorder should they become pregnant,” said Megan O’Hara, LCSW, a behavioral health therapist with the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. “Patients are educating themselves now and expecting their providers to consider their mental health as well as their physical health when getting care.” Women’s mental health care also has become more accessible, said Cynthia Guy, LMSW, MSCC, a women’s health behavioral consultant with the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. Behavioral health services are available in every ChristianaCare women’s health practice, including virtual and in-person care. “I can be the bridge connecting the patient with the resources they need to help them manage symptoms and what they are going through,” Guy said. Filling the cup As a result of her own experiences, Chandler teaches classes to help other mothers create their own art as a means of expression. It’s a small way of helping them to fill their own cup. The woman who once hid in her own closet to hide her feelings speaks openly about mental health with the hope people will lose their preconceived ideas about depression and anxiety. “I am so thankful for the journey and the many people I’ve met that have postpartum depression,” she said. “When we talk about what makes the best moms, I think the best mom is a healthy mom who is in balance and harmony.”
Forbes Ranks ChristianaCare Among America’s Best Employers for Women in 2024
ChristianaCare has been recognized as one of America’s Best Employers for Women by Forbes for 2024, marking the first time the company has received this prestigious recognition. In a survey of 150,000 women working for companies of at least 1,000 employees in the U.S., ChristianaCare ranked 150 on the list of 600 employers that were recognized. “This important recognition is a testament to our culture and the remarkable women who have chosen to build meaningful careers at ChristianaCare,” said Chris Cowan, MEd, FABC, ChristianaCare’s Chief Human Resources Officer. “Empowering women to succeed is integral to our culture and strengthens our organization. Together, we’ll continue to advance equity and inclusion in the workplace while transforming health and clinical care.” Forbes partnered with market research firm Statista, which surveyed employees on various aspects such as workplace environment, growth opportunities, compensation, diversity, parental leave, schedule flexibility and family assistance. ChristianaCare continues to cultivate a strong, inclusive, and diverse culture for women inside and outside the company by investing in professional development through its Women’s Employee Network (WEN) and providing a comprehensive benefits package that includes various flexible leave options for employees, including at least 12 weeks of paid parental leave. “Receiving this recognition from Forbes is an honor,” said Pamela Ridgeway, MBA, MA, SPHR, chief diversity officer and vice president of Talent and Acquisition at ChristianaCare. “In addition to offering workplace benefits such as paid maternity and paternity leave, ChristianaCare is firmly committed to empowering and advancing talented individuals within the workplace. Receiving this award for the first time signifies our unwavering dedication to ensuring that every individual has a voice and feels truly valued within our organization.” The Forbes recognition follows other national recognitions of ChristianaCare’s commitment to an inclusive workplace. Earlier this year, Forbes ranked ChristianaCare as one of the best employers for diversity in the U.S. Additionally, Forbes ranked ChristianaCare as the top health care employer for veterans in the United States. Both ChristianaCare’s Wilmington Hospital and Christiana Hospital have been named Leaders in LGBTQIA+ Healthcare Equality since 2012.
Expert Q&A: Should We Permit AI to Determine Gender and Race from Resumes?
The banner ads on your browser, the route Google maps suggests for you, the song Spotify plays next: algorithms are inescapable in our daily lives. Some of us are already aware of the mechanisms behind a targeted ad or a dating profile that lights up our phone screen. However, few of us may actually stop to consider how this technology plays out in the hiring sector. As with any major technological advancement, it usually takes society (and legislation) a while to catch up and adjust for unintended consequences. Ultimately, algorithms are powerful tools. Like any tool, they have the potential for societal benefit or harm, depending on how they’re wielded. Here to weigh in on the matter is Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management Prasanna Parasurama, who recently joined Emory Goizueta Business School’s faculty in fall of 2023. This interview has been edited for clarity. Describe your research interests in six words. Six words…that’s difficult to do on the spot. How about “the impact of AI and other digital technologies on hiring.” Is that condensed enough? That works! What first interested you in the intersection of AI and hiring practices? Before I did my PhD, I was working as a data scientist in the HR analytics space at a start-up company. That is where my interest in the topic began. But this was a long time ago. People hadn’t started talking much about AI, or algorithmic hiring. The conversation around algorithmic bias and algorithmic fairness picked up steam in the second or third year of my PhD. That had a strong influence on my dissertation focus. And naturally, one of the contexts in which both these matters have large repercussions is in the hiring space. What demographics does your research focus on (gender identity, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, all of the above)? Do you focus on a particular job sector? My research mostly looks at gender and race for two main reasons. First, prior research has typically looked at race and gender, which gives us a better foundation to build on. Second, it’s much easier to measure gender and race based on the data that we have available—from resumes, from hiring data, like what we collect from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They typically collect data on gender and race, and our research requires those really large data sets to draw patterns. They don’t ask for socioeconomic status or have an easy way to quantify that information. That’s not to say those are less important factors, or that no one is looking at them. One of the papers you’re working on examines resumes written by self-identified men and women. It looks at how their resumes differ, and how that influenced their likelihood of being contacted for an interview. So in this paper, we’re essentially looking at how men and women write their resumes differently and if that impacts hiring outcomes. Take resume screening algorithms, for example. One proposed way to reduce bias in these screening algorithms is to remove names from resumes to blind the applicant’s gender to the algorithm. But just removing names does very little, because there are so many other things that serve as proxies to someone’s gender. While our research is focused on people applying to jobs in the tech sector, this is true across occupations. "We find it’s easy to train an algorithm to accurately predict gender, even with names redacted." Prasanna Parasurama What are some of those gendered “tells” on a resume? People write down hobbies and extracurricular activities, and some of those are very gendered. Dancing and ballet tend to denote female applicants; you’re more likely to see something like wrestling for male applicants. Beyond hobbies, which is sort of obvious, is just how people write things, or the language they use. Female applicants tend to use a lot more affective words. Men, on the other hand, use more of what we call agentic words. Can you explain that a little more? In social psychology, social role theory argues that men are stereotyped to be more agentic, whereas women are stereotyped to be more communal, and that their communication styles reflect this. There’s essentially a list of agentic words that researchers have come up with that men use a lot more than women. And women are more likely to use affective words, like “warmly” or “closely,” which have to do with emotions or attitudes. These communication differences between men and women have been demonstrated in social sciences before, which has helped inform our work. But we’re not just relying on social science tools—our conclusions are driven by our own data. If a word is able to predict that an applicant’s resume belongs to a female versus male applicant, then we assign different weights, depending on how accurately it can predict that. So we’re not just operating on theories. Were there any gendered patterns that surprised you? If you were to assign masculinity and femininity to particular words, an algorithm would likely assign “married” to be a feminine term in most contexts. But in this particular case, it’s actually more associated with men. Men are much more likely to use it in resumes, because it signals something different to society than when women use it. "One of the most predictive terms for men was references to parenthood. It’s much easier for men to reference kids than for women to reveal information about their household status. Women face a penalty where men receive a boost." Prasanna Parasurama Studies show that people perceive fathers as being more responsible employees, whereas mothers are regarded as less reliable in the workplace. We haven’t studied this, but I would speculate that if you go on a platform like LinkedIn, men are more likely to disclose details about fatherhood, marriage, and kids than women are. There were some other tidbits that I didn’t see coming, like the fact that women are much less likely to put their addresses on their resume. Can AI predict race from a resume as easily as it can predict gender? There’s surprisingly very little we know on that front. From existing literature outside of algorithmic literature, we know differences exist in terms of race, not just on the employer side, where there might be bias, but we also on the worker side. People of different races search for jobs differently. The question is, how do we take this into account in the algorithm? From a technical standpoint, it should be feasible to do the same thing we do with gender, but it just becomes a little bit harder to predict race in practice. The cues are so variable. Gender is also more universal – no matter where you live, there are probably men and women and people who identify as in between or other. Whereas the concept of race can be very specific in different geographic regions. Racial identities in America are very different from racial identities in India, for instance. And in a place like India, religion matters a lot more than it does in the United States. So this conversation around algorithms and bias will look different across the globe. Beyond screening resumes, how does AI impact people’s access to job opportunities? A lot of hiring platforms and labor market intermediaries such as LinkedIn use AI. Their task is to match workers to these different jobs. There’s so many jobs and so many workers. No one can manually go through each one. So they have to train algorithms based on existing behavior and existing design decisions on the platform to recommend applicants to particular jobs and vice versa. When we talk about algorithmic hiring, it’s not just hiring per se, but spaces like these which dictate what opportunities you’re exposed to. It has a huge impact on who ends up with what job. What impact do you want your research to have in the real world? Do you think that we actually should use algorithms to figure out gender or race? Is it even possible to blind AI to gender or race? Algorithms are here to stay, for better or worse. We need them. When we think about algorithmic hiring, I think people picture an actual robot deciding who to hire. That’s not the case. Algorithms are typically only taking the space of the initial part of hiring. "I think overall, algorithms make our lives better. They can recommend a job to you based on more sophisticated factors than when the job was chronologically posted. There’s also no reason to believe that a human will be less biased than an algorithm." Prasanna Parasurama I think the consensus is that we can’t blind the algorithm to gender or other factors. Instead, we do have to take people’s demographics into account and monitor outcomes to correct for any sort of demonstrable bias. LinkedIn, for example, does a fairly good job publishing research on how they train their algorithms. It’s better to address the problem head on, to take demographic factors into account upfront and make sure that there aren’t drastic differences in outcomes between different demographics. What advice would you give to hopeful job candidates navigating these systems? Years of research have shown that going through a connection or a referral is by far the best way to increase your odds of getting an interview—by a factor of literally 200 to 300 percent. Hiring is still a very personal thing. People typically trust people they know. Prasanna Parasurama is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Prasanna’s research areas include algorithmic hiring, algorithmic bias and fairness, and human-AI interaction. His research leverages a wide array of quantitative methods including econometrics, machine learning, and natural language processing. Prasanna is available to talk about this important and developing topic - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
On the T-Swift beat? Our expert can fill any of the blank spaces you might have in your coverage
She's everywhere - and this month Taylor Swift restarts her world tour meaning coverage of this American mega-star will be global. Recently TCU's Naomi Ekas was featured in USA Today and Time Magazine where her expert opinion and insight into Taylor Swift's impact on American psychology is helping to explain her place atop planetary pop-culture. Professor Naomi Ekas teaches a course about the connection between psychology and Swift's place in pop culture at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. She believes there are universal themes listeners have experienced in Swift's lyrics but notes that the pop star's particular worldview may not translate to everyone. At the beginning of the spring semester, Ekas asked her students what labels they attached to Swift. Many of the responses reflected that were "these are white girl experiences, and this is white girl music and there isn't kind of that representation or that connection kind of outside of that particular racial group," she tells USA TODAY. "Everyone's dated the bad boy and they’ve had the friendship breakups and they’ve, you know, crashed and burned in relationships, revenge – these are pretty common themes across humankind, but then her particular life and how she's living them out might not connect to everybody," Ekas says. April 24 - USA Today Last year, when millions of people were trying to snag Eras Tour tickets, students at Texas Christian University were working just as hard to get into "Psychology (Taylor’s Version)," a new class offered by developmental psychologist Naomi Ekas. “We take different topics and themes from her music or her life and apply a developmental perspective to it,” she says. Classes have centered, for example, on infidelity, revenge, attraction, and breakups. During one recent class, Ekas played Marjorie, the devastating Evermore tune that pays tribute to Swift’s grandmother. (I should've asked you questions, I should've asked you how to be, she sings.) Many of the 120 students started crying and asked if they could have a few minutes to text their grandmother or their mom or their dad. “We were all like, ‘Do we continue with class today? Because we’re very sad,’” Ekas recalls. April 19 - Time Magazine There will be no shortage of Taylor Swift coverage in the coming months - and if you're a journalist looking to fill a blank space in your story and avoid a cruel summer with no expert sources - then let us help. Naomi Ekas's research program utilizes a developmental psychology approach to understanding children’s social and emotional development. She also teaches a course about the connection between psychology and Swift's place in pop culture. Naomi is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange a time today.
The EPA Cracks Down on "Forever Chemicals" in Drinking Water
For many years, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have contaminated drinking water supplies across the United States. But in April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced major steps to rein in these stubborn "forever chemicals." In a groundbreaking move, the EPA set strict new limits on six types of PFAS that are currently present in drinking water. Permitted levels of these chemicals are now close to zero, as water suppliers will be required to reduce them to the lowest level that can possibly be measured. These are the first-ever nationwide drinking water regulations for PFAS issued by the federal government. "The EPA is asking water companies to try to get PFAS levels to zero because there's no safe level. It's very difficult to test below four parts per trillion with the equipment and the testing mechanisms we have right now, so the levels will be reduced as much as they possibly can," said Laura Anderko, PhD, co-director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment at Villanova University's M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing. So, what's driving this urgency to minimize exposure to PFAS? Our children's health is one big reason. As Dr. Anderko explains, "Children are more susceptible and vulnerable to the health impacts of PFAS because their bodies are still growing. Some of the health issues resulting from PFAS exposure are high cholesterol and a decrease in infant growth and fetal growth—so much so that there's a tendency towards low birth weight." Adults aren't spared either. PFAS has been linked to health issues including kidney cancer, liver problems and reduced antibody response from vaccines. For pregnant women, PFAS can increase the risk of high blood pressure. "These chemicals do impact pretty much every organ system of the body," Dr. Anderko said. With many different PFAS compounds used in products from fast food packaging to Band-Aids to carpeting, avoiding exposure to them can be difficult. Dr. Anderko's advice to reduce exposure is to educate yourself on what products contain PFAS and purchase alternative options when possible. She also cautions against relying solely on bottled water, which isn't necessarily safer than tap water. "We have this idea that bottled water is safe because it's packaged, but a lot of times that water is not tested, and we know for a fact that bottled water is filled with microplastics," she said. "You're better off not relying on bottled water unless you absolutely have to." Per Dr. Anderko, in the United States, chemicals can be inserted into some products without stringent testing for human health effects beforehand, so the EPA's new PFAS limits represent a major step toward putting human health first. While there is still a long road ahead to completely eliminate PFAS from our daily lives, these new regulations signal a welcome shift toward protecting public health in our country.
Easier Access to Doulas for Mothers on Medicaid
Dr. Martine Hackett, associate professor and chair of Hofstra’s Department of Population Health, was interviewed by Newsday about the New York state health commissioner issuing a standing order that allows all pregnant women with Medicaid access to doula services. In the past, they needed to get an order from their individual licensed health care practitioner. The order removes “a barrier to doula services," said Dr. Hackett, who serves as co-founder of Birth Justice Warrior of Long Island, which advocates for healthier pregnancies and babies. “This is one of many steps being taken to simplify and streamline the process of connecting Medicaid members to community doulas,” she said, noting that the state has been trying to make it easier for doulas to handle the complex billing and claims process. Dr. Hackett's research focuses on public health and health inequities, particularly in the American suburbs and minority communities. She's available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
The anniversary of the approval of the 19th Amendment marks a pivotal moment in history when women in the United States were granted the right to vote, symbolizing a major victory in the women's suffrage movement. This event is newsworthy because it represents a fundamental shift towards gender equality and has had profound implications for democratic participation and women's rights. Celebrating this milestone also provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the ongoing struggles for gender equity. Key story angles include: Historical Context: Exploring the history and significance of the women's suffrage movement and the efforts leading up to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Impact on Women's Political Participation: Analyzing how the 19th Amendment has shaped women's involvement in politics and governance over the past century. Contemporary Gender Equality Issues: Investigating current challenges in achieving gender equality in various sectors, including the workplace, education, and politics. Role of Women in Social Movements: Highlighting the contributions of women to various social justice movements and their leadership in advocating for change. Legal and Policy Developments: Reviewing significant legal and policy changes since the 19th Amendment that have advanced or hindered women's rights. Global Perspective: Comparing the women's suffrage movement in the United States with similar movements around the world and their respective impacts on global gender equality. Connect with an Expert about the 19th Amendment and the women's suffrage movement : Carla Bittel Professor of History · Loyola Marymount University Kathy Roberts Forde Professor of Journalism · University of Massachusetts Amherst Catherine Cerulli Director, Susan B. Anthony Center · University of Rochester Christopher M. Curtis Professor of History · Georgia Southern University Mary Anne Trasciatti Professor of Writing Studies and Rhetoric · Hofstra University To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo Credit: Library of Congress