In this chapter, we suggest that current conversations about evaluative thinking would be enriched by the addition of insights from critical adult education rooted in critically reflective practice and critical theory. From our perspective situated in the praxis of adult education, we first review a sampling of literature on critical theory and critical reflection in evaluation, framed in terms of how evaluation theorists conceptualize the role of values and valuing in evaluation and how they envision the role of evaluation in society. Then, we explore some conceptual and practical overlaps between evaluative thinking, critical thinking, and critically reflective practice. Finally, we elucidate some implications of critical evaluative thinking for social justice evaluation, touching also on what implications this work might have even for those evaluators who do not perceive linkages and overlap between evaluative thinking and social justice. In doing so, we highlight new directions for the foundational training and continuing professional development of evaluation practitioners and scholars based on an examination of oneself and of one's paradigmatic assumptions through constant critical reflection, investigation, and action.

This case discusses how we used scoping review methodology to map the literature in an emergent area of research, "structural change" public health interventions. Scoping reviews are similar to systematic reviews in both scale and rigor; both of these literature review methodologies are comprehensive approaches to reviewing the literature on a topic. However, while a systematic review attempts to answer a specific, targeted research question, a scoping review is designed to map and categorize all of the literature on a broad topic. For this reason, it is an excellent method to employ in emergent research areas, in which researchers have not yet conducted systematic reviews or otherwise attempted to record the entirety of a scholarly conversation. In this case report, we discuss advantages and disadvantages to the methodology, as well as the lessons we learned from our experience, and our recommendations for researchers who utilize this method. We encountered challenges including time limitations, finding a balance between a search strategy that was neither too narrow nor too broad, and adjusting the search throughout the process to accommodate new vocabulary terms as we discovered them. Learning OutcomesBy the end of this case, students should be able to Understand the process of the scoping review methodology, including the major ways that it differs from that of a systematic review and other major literature review methodologies Identify existing frameworks for scoping review methodology Recognize the limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of conducting a scoping review as compared to other literature review methods, including the systematic review; given these limitations, determine whether this is the best methodology to use to review a given topic Describe practical challenges and success strategies for conducting a scoping review (2015) that focused on structural change interventions. "Structural changes" or "structural approaches" are defined as "modifications to the physical, social, political, and economic environment in which people make health-related decisions" (Lieberman, Golden, & Earp, 2013). The field of public health has been interested in structural changes, also called "policy, systems, and environmental" changes or "policy and environmental" changes for over a decade; however, few studies have examined how best to evaluate these SAGE Research Methods Cases Part 2 SAGE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) realities have demanded that educators move swiftly to adopt new ways of teaching, advising, and mentoring. We suggest the centering of a trauma-informed approach to education and academic administration during the COVID-19 pandemic using the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) guidance on trauma-informed approaches to care. In our model for trauma-informed education and administration (M-TIEA), SAMHSA’s four key organizational assumptions are foundational, including a realization about trauma and its wide-ranging effects; a recognition of the basic signs and symptoms of trauma; a response that involves fully integrating knowledge into programs, policies, and practices; and an active process for resisting retraumatization. Since educators during the pandemic must follow new restrictions regarding how they teach, we have expanded the practice of teaching in M-TIEA to include both academic administrators’ decision making about teaching, and educators’ planning and implementation of teaching. In M-TIEA, SAMHSA’s six guiding principles for a trauma-informed approach are infused into these two interrelated teaching processes, and include the following: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment, voice, and choice; and cultural, historical, and gender issues. M-TIEA’s organizational assumptions, processes, and principles are situated within an outer context that acknowledges the potential influences of four types of intersectional traumas and stressors that may occur at multiple socioecological levels: pandemic-related trauma and stressors; other forms of individual, group, community, or mass trauma and stressors; historical trauma; and current general life stressors. This acknowledges that all trauma-informed work is dynamic and may be influenced by contextual factors.

Transdisciplinary research and evaluation projects provide valuable opportunities to collaborate on interventions to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities. Given team members' diverse backgrounds and roles or responsibilities in such projects, members' perspectives are significant in strengthening a project's infrastructure and improving its organizational functioning. This article presents an evaluation mechanism that allows team members to express the successes and challenges incurred throughout their involvement in a multisite transdisciplinary research project. Furthermore, their feedback is used to promote future sustainability and growth. Guided by a framework known as organizational development, the evaluative process was conducted

No abstract