Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jaime L. Kucinskas, Associate Professor of Sociology, Hamilton College

For many Americans, work is not just about earning a paycheck. It is a centerpiece of their lives, and they want their job to be meaningful.

Decades of research suggest this is true for most federal civil servants, who aim to serve not only their organizations and their missions, but also the public and the nation. Over the course of President Donald Trump’s first administration, from 2017-21, we spoke with dozens of federal civil servants. They described their jobs as a calling aligned with their ideals – to serve the government, uphold democracy and serve the public.

Turbulent change during Trump’s first term, however, tested many workers. Over a quarter of the civil servants we spoke with ultimately left the federal government.

Since the start of his second term, Trump has attempted a far more sweeping overhaul of the federal bureaucracy. More than 50,000 federal workers have been fired or targeted for layoffs. The U.S. Agency for International Development was shuttered, for example, and more than 80% of employees have been fired from AmeriCorps and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Another 154,000 federal workers accepted the government’s buyout offers, which are structured as “deferred resignations.”

Yet there are similarities with Trump’s first term, such as his and his appointees’ attacks on civil servants’ loyalty and the administration’s efforts to punish dissent.

Our interviews from Trump’s first term – the basis for the 2025 book “The Loyalty Trap” – may give insight into what civil servants are experiencing today. In some ways, their concerns are unique to government work. Yet they also face a challenge many workers confront during dramatic changes at their organization, regardless of their field: whether to stay or go.

Nonpartisan workforce

The federal civil service is composed primarily of career professionals who work for a mission-driven agency, not just a specific administration. These employees consider themselves nonpartisan, prepared to serve presidents from either party.

When a new administration takes over, whether Democratic or Republican, it installs political appointees to lead the agencies that execute federal law. These agencies help develop federal regulations, enforce laws and regulations, provide services and carry out policies. Career civil servants expect to carry out appointees’ instructions, and are under legal and ethical obligations to do so.

The ethical code and oath of office civil that servants swear to upon starting their positions require them to uphold the Constitution, laws and ethical principles, and to “faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office.” They may not “use public office for private gain” and are required to report any “waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption.”

Federal employees expect significant changes in policy direction and describe it as part of the job. As one State Department worker told us in 2018:

“The president is elected by the people and can define his or her own foreign policy, and our job as career officers of the State Department is to enact that person’s policy. So I have no problem — I have my own moral questions about what the president’s foreign policy choices are – but from a commitment and service oath that I’ve taken to work at the State Department, it is my job to implement the intent of the president and the Secretary of State.”

Loyalty trap

Under the first Trump administration, however, many interviewees described a new level of abrupt change and politicization, where personal loyalty to the president seemed prioritized over their agencies’ missions and norms.

Civil servants must abide by the Hatch Act, which forbids some kinds of political activities, like hosting fundraisers – rules meant to shield them from political pressure and keep promotions merit-based. During the first term, however, Trump officials repeatedly violated the Hatch Act, according to a 2021 federal probe.

In this environment during the first Trump administration, “Loyalty [was] to not question,” said a senior officer at the Environmental Protection Agency. Amid increasing mistrust and suspicion, she believed that “whenever you raised a question in this environment, you were thought to be leaking as well.” This cut against some civil servants’ understanding that it was their job, as longtime agency workers and experts, to provide the best advice possible.

Emphasis on personal loyalty was difficult for some of them to reconcile with loyalty to the missions of their agencies or to the public interest, particularly as many policies took a sharp turn. By January 2021, around three-quarters of the regulations, guidance documents and agency memos the Trump administration issued that were challenged in court had been invalidated or withdrawn, according to research at New York University.

Some civil servants working to bolster democracy around the world and at home, for example, were disturbed by shifts in foreign policy. The president frequently praised authoritarian leaders with poor human rights records – such as Vladimir Putin of Russia, Kim Jung Un of North Korea and Reçep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey – while giving the cold shoulder to allies in Europe.

“The thrust of U.S. foreign policy has generally followed a pretty predictable path,” observed one longtime member of the State Department, who had worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations. “This administration has come in and has basically disregarded the overall imperative that we have to promote democracy and to promote transparency.”

Around 80% of our interviewees said they were experiencing moral dissonance as a result of the sense that their own values, job standards and political leaders’ expectations did not align. These workers were experiencing what we call a “loyalty trap”: the sense of being caught between following higher-ups’ directives and complying with other professional and ethical obligations.

Eyeing the exits

German economist Albert Hirschman’s 1970 book, “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” helps explain what workers do when they believe their organization is in decline. Hirschman argued that loyalty to an organization can delay a worker’s decision to leave and motivate them to speak up and push for improvement.

Other studies since then have also examined how loyalty shapes workers’ decisions. Research on industries from journalism to mining and taxi operations suggests that when employees feel they have no opportunity to voice dissent and influence the group’s direction, even the most loyal workers may eventually decide to exit.

However, loyalty to the mission of an organization can shape a worker’s decision in complex ways. Sociologist Elizabeth A. Hoffman, for example, studied workers in conventional versus cooperative, employee-owned businesses. She found that employees in a cooperative food distribution company – who expressed strong allegiance to the company and their co-workers – were more likely to mention exiting in response to grievances than their counterparts in a conventional company. She concluded that the cooperative’s workers’ greater “zeal” for the group’s mission actually made them more likely to consider leaving when they felt frustrated or betrayed.

These findings echo themes among civil servants we spoke with who wound up leaving the government – people who valued public service but doubted their power to use their voice to do work as they saw fit.

Civil servants’ exits can be costly for them and their families – but also for their governments, as public administration scholars have found in countries around the world. Experienced workers’ departure can result in the loss of institutional knowledge, and they are often replaced with political loyalists. A 2023 review of almost 100 studies – including research from more than 150 countries – concluded that governments where employees were hired based on their education and work experience, not their politics, had less corruption, more efficiency and greater public trust.

Under the current U.S. administration – which is openly punishing dissent among civil servants – we expect an even greater number of employees to contemplate departure.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Civil servant exodus: How employees wrestle with whether to stay, speak up or go – https://theconversation.com/civil-servant-exodus-how-employees-wrestle-with-whether-to-stay-speak-up-or-go-261985

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Timothy J Lombardo, Associate Professor of History, University of South Alabama

In August 2025, the city of Philadelphia agreed to return a statue of Frank Rizzo to the supporters that commissioned the memorial in 1992.

The 2,000-pound bronze tribute to the former police commissioner-turned-mayor had stood in front of the city’s Municipal Services Building from 1998 until 2020, when then-mayor Jim Kenney ordered it removed days after protesters attempted to topple it during the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd.

While the agreement states that the statue cannot be placed in public view, conservatives have still hailed its return as a triumph for Rizzo’s legacy. In the ongoing culture wars over historical memory and memorialization, Rizzo’s supporters have declared their repossession of the statue a victory over the “woke mayor” who unlawfully removed it.

As a historian and native Philadelphian, I have written extensively about the city. My first book, which will be rereleased with a new preface in February 2026, traces the rise of Rizzo’s political appeal and contextualizes his supporters’ politics in the broader history of the rise of the right.

My work recognizes Rizzo not only as the quintessential backlash politician of the 1960s and 1970s, but also as a harbinger of today’s identity-based populism that favors social and cultural victories over economic redistribution.

As police commissioner from 1967 to 1971 and mayor from 1972 to 1979, Rizzo became a hero to the white, blue-collar Philadelphians who clamored for “law and order” and railed against liberal policymaking. Until he died in 1991, while running a third campaign to retake the mayor’s office, Rizzo was an avatar of what I call “blue-collar conservatism.”

Understanding Rizzo’s career and political popularity can help explain the persistent appeal of this identity-based populism in the 21st century.

Rizzo, from cop to mayor

Francis Lazzaro Rizzo was born in South Philadelphia, in the mostly Italian-American neighborhood his parents settled in after immigrating from Calabria, Italy.

In a city where police work was often a family affair, Rizzo followed his father’s footsteps into the Philadelphia Police Department a few years after dropping out of high school.

Early on, he drew praise from superiors for his clean-cut image and aggressive policing. In the 1950s, Rizzo fortified that reputation while patrolling predominantly Black neighborhoods in West Philadelphia and leading raids on gay meeting places in Center City.

As deputy commissioner in the 1960s, Rizzo directly confronted the city’s civil rights movement. Among other exploits, he commanded the response to the Columbia Avenue Uprising in 1964, when North Philadelphia residents responded to an all-too-common act of police brutality with three days of urban disorder.

He also faced down protesters seeking to integrate Girard College, an all-white city-operated boarding school for orphaned boys in the heart of predominantly Black North Philadelphia.

While serving as acting commissioner in 1967, Rizzo led a throng of baton-wielding police into a crowd of high schoolers demanding education reform. The scene ended with police chasing down and beating mostly Black youngsters in front of the Board of Education headquarters.

Rizzo was promoted to commissioner later that year.

While African Americans and white liberals decried his “Gestapo tactics,” Rizzo grew increasingly popular among the city’s white, blue-collar residents.

He capitalized on their enthusiasm in 1971, when he campaigned and won his first election for mayor as both a Democrat and the self-proclaimed “toughest cop in America.”

For two terms he rewarded his supporters by opposing and limiting liberal programs they had fought, like public housing, school desegregation and affirmative action. When dissatisfied Democrats challenged his reelection in 1975, Rizzo vowed revenge by saying he would “make Atilla the Hun look like a fa—t.”

Finally, while campaigning for an amendment to Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter to allow him to run for a third consecutive mayoral term, Rizzo told an all-white audience of public housing opponents to “vote white” for charter change.

Populism then and now

Rizzo’s record makes clear why protesters targeted his statue in 2020. When Mayor Kenney ordered it removed, he called it “a deplorable monument to racism, bigotry and police brutality for members of the Black community, the LGBTQ community and many others.”

While Rizzo and his supporters were certainly part of the late 1960s backlash against civil rights and liberalism generally, his populism was more complex and durable than that narrative suggests.

He also offered affirmation to a beleaguered white, blue-collar identity. His supporters raved about his forceful policing and cheered his anti-liberalism as a last line of defense against policies they considered threats to their livelihoods. Just as important, they saw themselves reflected in the rough-talking high school dropout who worked his way up to the most powerful position in Philadelphia.

When Rizzo first ran for mayor, one of his supporters told a reporter that “He’ll win because he isn’t a Ph.D. He’s one of us. Rizzo came up the hard way.”

That kind of identity-based populism offered social and cultural victories even when it did little to address the declining economy that struck urban America in the 1970s. So while Rizzo’s populism had few answers for deindustrialization, in 1972 he was able to temporarily halt construction on a public housing project in an all-white section of his native South Philadelphia.

Trump’s similar appeal

Donald Trump offers a similar populist appeal in the 21st century. In fact, he has drawn comparisons to Rizzo since his first presidential campaign.

Like Rizzo, Trump’s appeal is more social and cultural than economic. Critics have argued that Trump’s promotion of traditional Republican economic policies belie the notion that he is a populist. Trump’s populism, however, lies not in his ability to deliver working-class prosperity, but conservative victories in the nation’s long-standing culture wars.

Trump’s policies may not fulfill his promise to lower the cost of groceries or health care, but mass deportations reward those who fear a changing American identity.

Sending troops into cities may not address the cost-of-living crisis, but it delights those who see disorder in urban society.

Trump’s attempt to recast national history museums in a patriotic mold may not usher in a new “Golden Age of America,” but it promises a victory to opponents of “woke” history.

Redistributive vs. identity populism

Despite the lopsided attention Trump’s social and cultural populism receives, a kind of progressive, redistributive populism persists in many American cities. This populism promises a redirection of resources from elites and toward working people.

In Philadelphia in 2023, the multicultural, left-populist Working Families Party won the two at-large seats reserved for minority-party representation in the city’s legislature. Currently, Zohran Mamdani’s upstart campaign for mayor of New York seems to be reviving a long tradition of progressive urban populism.

Redistributive populism, however, remains at odds with the identity populism once championed by Rizzo and now by Trump. While the Trump administration’s policies may promise social and cultural victories, they have done little to affect the economic prospects of working-class Americans.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Timothy J Lombardo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Frank Rizzo, a high school dropout, became Philadelphia’s toughest cop and a harbinger of MAGA politics – https://theconversation.com/how-frank-rizzo-a-high-school-dropout-became-philadelphias-toughest-cop-and-a-harbinger-of-maga-politics-263229

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ruohao Zhang, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Penn State

Since the 1940s, companies have been using PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – to make products easier to use, from Teflon nonstick pots to waterproof rain gear, stain-resistant carpet and firefighting foam.

The chemicals’ resistance to heat, oils, stains, grease and water makes them useful. However, that same chemical stability also makes them linger in the environment – and in the human body. Studies have suggested that some types of PFAS can contribute to health harms, including thyroid disease, liver damage and kidney and testicular cancer.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that there is no safe level of human exposure for two of the most common PFAS compounds: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). It set drinking water standards limiting their acceptable levels in water systems in 2024.

However, drinking water isn’t the only way people are exposed to PFAS today.

To better understand the ways people are being exposed to PFAS, we and a team of colleagues examined four exposure pathways – drinking water contamination, food contamination, recreational exposure and industrial emissions, such as from Superfund sites, airports, military bases and manufacturing plants – across three Great Lakes states: Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania.

An interactive map and online dashboard we created lets residents look up their communities’ known PFAS exposure risks. The results offer insights for people across the United States who share similar living environments, dietary choices and lifestyles.

PFAS exposure patterns

The extensive use and improper disposal of products containing these “forever chemicals” have led to their widespread presence in the environment. They have made their way into farm fields, drinking water and water bodies, where fish and shellfish can ingest the chemicals and humans can swim in PFAS-contaminated water.

In an analysis of the three states, we found that the average person consumes about three times more PFAS through food than through drinking water.

We looked at 19 food items in which PFAS have been detected, including seafood, such as clams, crab and shrimp, which have the highest levels of PFAS. Other foods beyond these 19 may also expose people to PFAS, so the totals may underestimate the actual intake.

For water contamination, we found that PFAS had been detected in 1,272 out of 2,593 tested public water facilities in Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania, collectively serving a population of about 23 million people.

We also found distinct patterns of PFAS exposure.

Among the three states, Pennsylvania has the highest risk of PFAS exposure from food and water, while Michigan has the lowest. Michigan’s lower risk likely reflects its significantly lower PFAS contamination in drinking water, which may be due to its PFAS water-testing and regulation.

Notably, our analysis found that most dietary PFAS risk comes from butter, olive oil and shrimp. Seafood typically contains much higher PFAS concentrations than butter or olive oil – polluted rivers bring these chemicals into marine environments, and fish and shellfish gradually accumulate and magnify it through the food chain. However, substantially greater consumption of butter and olive oil makes those products potentially large dietary sources of PFAS.

It’s important to note that not all sources of the foods we examined have the same PFAS risk, and the analysis did not assess the health effects from the PFAS exposure levels detected.

We found that intake of foods that can contain PFAS is higher in Pennsylvania and New York than in Michigan, driven largely by greater seafood and olive oil consumption, likely reflecting the influence of Mediterranean cuisines. Higher seafood consumption there is consistent with proximity to the coast.

Comparing Detroit, Philadelphia and NYC

Zooming in on individual cities offers more insight:

Detroit has an above-average risk of PFAS exposure through food compared with other locations in Michigan, and the highest amount among the three major urban centers we looked at. Ground beef and baked tilapia, two products in which PFAS has been detected in the North Central regional market, contribute to Detroit’s relatively higher food-related PFAS exposure risk compared with cities in other states, in addition to high consumption of bacon, sausage and crab.

Detroit’s public drinking water hasn’t been tested for PFAS, so residents’ risk level from water is unknown.

New York City has minimal PFAS exposure risk from its public drinking water and much lower PFAS levels than surrounding suburban areas. Its risk of dietary intake of PFAS comes primarily from consumption of butter and olive oil.

Philadelphia’s public drinking water has also been found to be at minimal risk, with significantly lower PFAS contamination than in surrounding suburban areas. However, it has relatively high consumption of shrimp, bacon and sausage. We found that the city and its region also have a high risk of exposure to PFAS from recreation on water bodies compared with other regions. Studies are only beginning to understand the risks from PFAS exposure through skin.

Among smaller cities, Rochester, New York, and its surrounding area, particularly along Lake Ontario, also stands out for its higher risks from recreational exposure to PFAS compared with other regions. A 2024 study of PFAS in the Great Lakes found that airborne pollution was contributing to contamination in the five lakes, particularly Lake Ontario, along with PFAS from industry-lined rivers.

How to reduce your PFAS exposure

In general, we recommend several actions to help mitigate PFAS exposure risk.

Households served by public water systems with high levels of PFAS may want to use drinking water filtration systems.

People can also reduce their exposure by adjusting their dietary choices by eating less of those foods with the potential to have PFAS contamination.

Our dashboard also includes a map of recreational sites near PFAS-contaminated water bodies.

The dashboard reflects the goal of our study – not only to inform, but also to empower individuals and communities to make healthier choices. Local governments and advocacy groups can also use the data to prioritize policies to reduce exposure.

Where to learn more

Several official and unofficial resources are also available to help the public understand PFAS contamination across the U.S.

The EPA created an online PFAS Analytic Tool that shows locations of PFAS contamination in natural water, drinking water systems, and industrial emissions through interactive maps. The Environmental Working Group, a science and advocacy group, provides a map highlighting PFAS-contaminated sites and affected public water systems.

These resources offer valuable insights into contamination locations, but they do not directly assess human exposure or individual risk.

As the research on PFAS continues to develop and policies evolve, the need for information becomes increasingly important for public understanding and prevention. We hope our study inspires people to become more informed and more engaged in protecting themselves and their families from environmental pollution exposure.

Jiahui Guo, a Ph.D. student at Penn State, and Yongwang Ren, a postdoctoral researcher at Kansas State University, contributed to this article.

This project is funded by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, Grant Number: NA22OAR4170654-T1-01.

– ref. You can be exposed to PFAS through food, water, even swimming in lakes – new maps show how risk from ‘forever chemicals’ varies – https://theconversation.com/you-can-be-exposed-to-pfas-through-food-water-even-swimming-in-lakes-new-maps-show-how-risk-from-forever-chemicals-varies-261632

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jeffrey C. Hallo, Professor of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University

When people think about national parks, they often think about the most famous ones – places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Denali, Acadia, Glacier, Everglades and the Great Smoky Mountains. These are among the nation’s most sought-after destinations, with awe-inspiring scenery, abundant wildlife and places for adventure and recreation.

Admission is free at most of them, and at the rest, it’s competitive with the cost of a family meal deal at a fast-food joint.

But there is much more to the nation’s park system than just the 63 places formally designated as national parks. The National Park Service also manages nearly 400 other areas designated for their national significance as battlefields, military or historic sites, lakeshores, seashores, monuments, parkways, recreation areas, trails, rivers and preserves.

As a scholar of parks, recreation and tourism who has also published a children’s book about the wonders of the National Park System, I have seen how important these places are to Americans. And when the nation grapples with political divisions, civil unrest, social change or pandemics, these public lands – whether technically national parks or other elements in the wider system – are debated and fought over, protested in and used as an example. But they also provide places to find peace and restoration.

These sites of national significance are in every state in the U.S. – and hold surprising treasures no less wondrous than the big-name destinations, potentially right around the corner from your home.

Enjoyment at the waterfront

America’s coastlines, shorelines, lakes and rivers are often prime destinations for vacationers, but access to them can be limited by private development, and parking and admission fees can be costly.

National parks help protect wide swaths of public access to these popular destinations and the affordability of visiting them for generations to come. Almost all of these water-focused parks allow swimming, beach or shore access, boating and fishing.

For example, Cumberland Island National Seashore in Georgia is an idyllic island with wild horses, historic mansions, uncrowded beaches and a maritime forest where you can hunt for fossilized shark teeth and camp among the Spanish moss-covered oak trees.

Point Reyes National Seashore in California has tule elk and elephant seal herds, a picturesque red-roofed lighthouse and fog-swept cliffs along the Pacific Ocean. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin has sea caves to explore on kayaks.

Backcountry exploration

When people seek a break from the pace of modern life and the demands of being digitally connected, national parks contain expanses of backcountry, where signs of civilization are sparse, and where profound natural beauty, adventure and solitude are still available.

In Michigan’s Isle Royale National Park, you can see moose and hear wolves howl in the island’s wilderness. In South Carolina’s Congaree National Park, you can canoe or kayak on backwater creeks among some of the largest and tallest trees in eastern North America.

In Idaho, Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve allows visitors to explore an otherworldly volcanic landscape of lava flows, cinder cones and lava tubes. Primitive roads there allow people to drive into the backcountry to experience solitude without hiking.

National parks also offer a break from looking at this world entirely: 44 properties in the National Park Service system are certified as International Dark Sky Parks, where the nighttime environment is protected from invasive light pollution by laws and local regulations.

A break from urban life

In America’s suburbs, and even in the heart of major cities, national park lands bring history, nature, leisure and urban life together. These parks reinforce the idea that national parks aren’t just for long-distance vacations but rather for daily life, enjoyment and reflection not far from home.

For example, the Mississippi National River & Recreation Area in Minnesota offers roughly 4 million residents of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area mostly free access to over 70 miles of the river for all manner of waterborne and shoreline recreation. And just outside of New York City, off Long Island’s south shore, Fire Island National Seashore provides an easy escape to a rare coastal wilderness for undisturbed hikes through dunes and salt marshes.

Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas is one of the only national parks fully integrated into a small city. An area first preserved by Congress for public recreation in 1832 – 40 years before Yellowstone became the first official national park – it offers miles of trails that feel wild, despite their proximity to the downtown area. Its historic Bathhouse Row provides opportunities for bathing in thermal waters, and the park encourages visitors to drink the natural waters at the numerous spring-fed fountains in the town.

If a stronger drink is needed, Hot Springs is the only national park that has a brewery within its boundaries, using the park’s thermal spring water in its beers.

Lessons from history and culture

The National Park System also preserves America’s history and culture – and reminds people of the country’s collective mistakes and triumphs. The parks help Americans apply the many lessons of history to current issues. Americans can learn what we as a nation and as a collective of people have done – and what we have always yearned to do.

Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia showcases the birthplace of American democracy, where the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were debated and signed, establishing a new democracy with sweeping goals of equality and opportunity for everyone.

Manzanar National Historic Site in California and Kalaupapa National Historical Park in Hawaii keep alive the stories of forced internments of people who were deemed dangerous or undesirable, reminding Americans that there have been times the nation did not live up to its ideals.

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota and Manhattan Project National Historical Park, with sites in Tennessee, New Mexico and Washington, shed light on the technology and politics of warfare.

And Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument in Washington, D.C., César E. Chávez National Monument in California and Stonewall National Monument in the heart of New York City – along with many other similar national parks – teach Americans about the generations-long ongoing struggles for civil rights and social justice.

U.S. national parks are more numerous, complex and full of wonder and opportunities for discovery than any one person could fully grasp – whether a self-proclaimed superfan or a credentialed expert. There is always more to discover, with more stories to hear and more places to see and explore.

There are likely lesser-known gems very close by for you to visit. Take a friend, a child or someone who has never been there before. People who use parks love them, and parks supported by love are protected – by all of us.

Jeffrey C. Hallo receives funding from the National Park Service.

– ref. Hidden treasures of America’s national parks are closer than you might think – https://theconversation.com/hidden-treasures-of-americas-national-parks-are-closer-than-you-might-think-262585

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Soon Hyeok Choi, Assistant Professor of Real Estate Finance, Rochester Institute of Technology

People often say that a single spark can light a fire.

In careers, that spark is often a person. It might be someone early in life who cracks open a door, offers encouragement, or quietly shows what success can look like. What’s less obvious is how profoundly that very first connection can shape everything that comes afterward.

Consider 23-time Grand Slam tennis champion Serena Williams. Williams has often spoken about the crucial role played by her first coach – and father – Richard Williams. His belief in her abilities and his willingness to expose her to competitive tennis from an early age ensured she gained experience long before most of her peers. In this, she’s not alone – in sports, a first coach can recognize potential before anyone else does.

Or consider Misty Copeland, the first Black female principal dancer at American Ballet Theatre. At 13, a Boys & Girls Club teacher, Cynthia Bradley, recognized her potential and brought her into formal ballet training; within four years Copeland earned a spot in ABT’s Studio Company. In 2015, she became ABT’s first Black female principal, a milestone built on that early mentorship. Those first advocates opened doors to elite training, scholarships and professional networks that sustained a long, barrier-breaking career.

Anecdotes like these are powerful, but they also raise questions. Do early connections cause long-term success, or do they simply come more easily to people already positioned to succeed? After all, a young athlete with supportive and affluent parents might have access to better training and competition regardless of who their first coach is. This chicken-and-egg problem is hard to untangle – unless you look at a setting where chance plays a role. That’s where my research comes in.

Real estate as a natural laboratory

I’m a professor of real estate finance, and I noticed that the residential real estate brokerage industry can mimic a random experimental setting. Since only a small number of people are active in housing markets at any given time, agents can’t choose exactly who they work with. That means a new agent’s first counterparty broker – that is, the agent on the other side of the deal – depends on who happens to be representing clients at the same time and place. In many cases, that first connection is essentially a matter of luck.

So my colleagues and I analyzed more than 20 years of home sales data from Charlotte, North Carolina, covering more than 40,000 unique real estate agents and 417,000 home sales between 2001 and 2023. We found that new agents who land their first deal with a well-connected power broker are about 25% more likely to still be in the business a year later. Since many agents struggle to close a second deal within a year of their first, this significantly boosts their chances of building a lasting career.

The first handshake and lasting spark

What makes these first encounters so powerful is not only the transfer of skills but also the shaping of confidence and identity. A young musician invited to join an orchestra by a respected conductor begins to see himself as part of that world. A student encouraged by a scientist to enter a national competition begins to imagine a place for herself in research. An athlete who trains with an Olympic medalist begins to visualize competing at the highest levels. In each case, the first connection changes the sense of what is possible.

Our study also found that new agents at the greatest risk of leaving the field – those with fewer early sales – benefit the most from starting out with a well-connected partner. The same dynamic appears in sports, where struggling athletes often flourish under coaches with deep relationships and credibility, and in education, where students on the verge of disengaging can be reenergized by respected teachers who open doors to programs, competitions and networks. These mentors do more than teach. They change trajectories.

The lesson for those just beginning their careers: Seek out people who are respected and generous with their experience. Observing how they work, think and solve problems can shape your own professional identity.

For those who are more established, the takeaway is equally important: Offering a hand to someone new, making an introduction or simply offering encouragement can set in motion a sequence of events that shape a life.

Soon Hyeok Choi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A first connection can make a big difference when it comes to sticking with a career – https://theconversation.com/a-first-connection-can-make-a-big-difference-when-it-comes-to-sticking-with-a-career-263892

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sara Giordano, Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, Kennesaw State University

Even if you don’t recall many facts from high school biology, you likely remember the cells required for making babies: egg and sperm. Maybe you can picture a swarm of sperm cells battling each other in a race to be the first to penetrate the egg.

For decades, scientific literature described human conception this way, with the cells mirroring the perceived roles of women and men in society. The egg was thought to be passive while the sperm was active.

Over time, scientists realized that sperm are too weak to penetrate the egg and that the union is more mutual, with the two cells working together. It’s no coincidence that these findings were made in the same era when new cultural ideas of more egalitarian gender roles were taking hold.

Scientist Ludwik Fleck is credited with first describing science as a cultural practice in the 1930s. Since then, understanding has continued to build that scientific knowledge is always consistent with the cultural norms of its time.

Despite these insights, across political differences, people strive for and continue to demand scientific objectivity: the idea that science should be unbiased, rational and separable from cultural values and beliefs.

When I entered my Ph.D. program in neuroscience in 2001, I felt the same way. But reading a book by biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling called “Sexing the Body” set me down a different path. It systematically debunked the idea of scientific objectivity, showing how cultural ideas about sex, gender and sexuality were inseparable from the scientific findings. By the time I earned my Ph.D., I began to look more holistically at my research, integrating the social, historical and political context.

From the questions scientists begin with, to the beliefs of the people who conduct the research, to choices in research design, to interpretation of the final results, cultural ideas constantly inform “the science.” What if an unbiased science is impossible?

Emergence of idea of scientific objectivity

Science grew to be synonymous with objectivity in the Western university system only over the past few hundred years.

In the 15th and 16th centuries, some Europeans gained traction in challenging the religiously ordained royal order. Consolidation of the university system led to shifts from trust in religious leaders interpreting the word of “god,” to trust in “man” making one’s own rational decisions, to trust in scientists interpreting “nature.” The university system became an important site for legitimizing claims through theories and studies.

Previously, people created knowledge about their world, but there were not strict boundaries between what are now called the humanities, such as history, English and philosophy, and the sciences, including biology, chemistry and physics. Over time, as questions arose about how to trust political decisions, people split the disciplines into categories: subjective versus objective. The splitting came with the creation of other binary oppositions, including the closely related emotionality/rationality divide. These categories were not simply seen as opposite, but in a hierarchy with objectivity and rationality as superior.

A closer look shows that these binary systems are arbitrary and self-reinforcing.

Science is a human endeavor

The sciences are fields of study conducted by humans. These people, called scientists, are part of cultural systems just like everyone else. We scientists are part of families and have political viewpoints. We watch the same movies and TV shows and listen to the same music as nonscientists. We read the same newspapers, cheer for the same sports teams and enjoy the same hobbies as others.

All of these obviously “cultural” parts of our lives are going to affect how scientists approach our jobs and what we consider “common sense” that does not get questioned when we do our experiments.

Beyond individual scientists, the kinds of studies that get conducted are based on what questions are deemed relevant or not by dominant societal norms.

For example, in my Ph.D. work in neuroscience, I saw how different assumptions about hierarchy could influence specific experiments and even the entire field. Neuroscience focuses on what is called the central nervous system. The name itself describes a hierarchical model, with one part of the body “in charge” of the rest. Even within the central nervous system, there was a conceptual hierarchy with the brain controlling the spinal cord.

My research looked more at what happened peripherally in muscles, but the predominant model had the brain at the top. The taken-for-granted idea that a system needs a boss mirrors cultural assumptions. But I realized we could have analyzed the system differently and asked different questions. Instead of the brain being at the top, a different model could focus on how the entire system communicates and works together at coordination.

Every experiment also has assumptions baked in – things that are taken for granted, including definitions. Scientific experiments can become self-fulfilling prophecies.

For example, billions of dollars have been spent on trying to delineate sex differences. However, the definition of male and female is almost never stated in these research papers. At the same time, evidence mounts that these binary categories are a modern invention not based on clear physical differences.

But the categories are tested so many times that eventually some differences are discovered without putting these results into a statistical model together. Oftentimes, so-called negative findings that don’t identify a significant difference are not even reported. Sometimes, meta-analyses based on multiple studies that investigated the same question reveal these statistical errors, as in the search for sex-related brain differences. Similar patterns of slippery definitions that end up reinforcing taken-for-granted assumptions happen with race, sexuality and other socially created categories of difference.

Finally, the end results of experiments can be interpreted in many different ways, adding another point where cultural values are injected into the final scientific conclusions.

Settling on science when there’s no objectivity

Vaccines. Abortion. Climate change. Sex categories. Science is at the center of most of today’s hottest political debates. While there is much disagreement, the desire to separate politics and science seems to be shared. On both sides of the political divide, there are accusations that the other side’s scientists cannot be trusted because of political bias.

Consider the recent controversy over the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory panel. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, saying they were biased, while some Democratic lawmakers argued back that his move put in place those who would be biased in pushing his vaccine-skeptical agenda.

If removing all bias is impossible, then, how do people create knowledge that can be trusted?

The understanding that all knowledge is created through cultural processes does allow for two or more differing truths to coexist. You see this reality in action around many of today’s most controversial subjects. However, this does not mean you must believe all truths equally – that’s called total cultural relativism. This perspective ignores the need for people to come to decisions together about truth and reality.

Instead, critical scholars offer democratic processes for people to determine which values are important and for what purposes knowledge should be developed. For example, some of my work has focused on expanding a 1970s Dutch model of the science shop, where community groups come to university settings to share their concerns and needs to help determine research agendas. Other researchers have documented other collaborative practices between scientists and marginalized communities or policy changes, including processes for more interdisciplinary or democratic input, or both.

I argue a more accurate view of science is that pure objectivity is impossible. Once you leave the myth of objectivity behind, though, the way forward is not simple. Instead of a belief in an all-knowing science, we are faced with the reality that humans are responsible for what is researched, how it is researched and what conclusions are drawn from such research.

With this knowledge, we have the opportunity to intentionally set societal values that inform scientific investigations. This requires decisions about how people come to agreements about these values. These agreements need not always be universal but instead can be dependent on the context of who and what a given study might affect. While not simple, using these insights, gained over decades of studying science from both within and outside, may force a more honest conversation between political positions.

Sara Giordano does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Scientific objectivity is a myth – cultural values and beliefs always influence science and the people who do it – https://theconversation.com/scientific-objectivity-is-a-myth-cultural-values-and-beliefs-always-influence-science-and-the-people-who-do-it-259137