Table 1 Evaluation of Integration, Application and Community Scholarship

1. Clear Goals:

• Does the scholar state the basic purpose of his or her work clearly?

• Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable?

• Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?

Framework for the integrative perspective is elaborated clearly

Policy or social problem being addressed is specified clearly

1. Are goals clearly stated and jointly defined by community and academics?

2. Has partnership developed goals, objectives based upon community needs?

3. How do we identify community issues? Are needs and issues recognized by scholar and institution?

4. Do both community and academia think issue is significant, important?

5. Have partners developed a definition of what "common good" is?

6. Have partners worked toward an agreed upon "common good"?

7. Is there a vision for the future of partnership?

2. Adequate Preparation:

• Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field?

• Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work?

• Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?

Approach evidenced breadth and depth in the topics being addressed

Approach evidences having laid the relevant groundwork with participating entities

1. Does the scholar have knowledge and skills to conduct assessment and implement program?

2. Has scholar laid groundwork for program based on recent work in the field?

3. Were needs and strengths of community identified and assessed using appropriate method?

4. Did the scholar and community consider all the important economic, social, cultural and political factors that affect the issue?

5. Does the scholar recognize and respect community expertise?

6. Have community-academic partners become a community of scholars?

7. Does scholar recognize community can 'teach' and has expertise?

8. Does scholar stay current in the field?

3. Appropriate Methods:

• Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals?

• Does the scholar apply effectively the method selected?

• Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?

Author's perspectives (or biases) in the selection and synthesis of materials are articulated explicitly

Approach balances both rigor and relevance

1. Have all partners been actively involved at all levels of partnership process, assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation?

2. Has development of partnership's work followed a planned process that has been tested in multiple environments, and proven effective?

3. Have partnerships been developed according to a nationally acceptable framework for building partnerships?

Approach

1. Are methods used appropriately matched to the need?

2. Do methods build community involvement and sustainability?

3. What outcomes have occurred in program development, implementation?

4. Do scholar and community select, adapt and modify method with attention to local circumstances and continuous feedback from community?

5. Do programs reflect culture of community?

6. Does scholar use innovative and original approaches?

4. Significant Results:

• Does the scholar achieve the goals?

• Does the scholar's work add consequently to the field?

• Does the scholar's work open additional areas for further exploration?

Results influence or inform interdisciplinary perspective

Results influence or inform program or policy design

1. Has program resulted in positive health outcomes in community?

2. Has partnership effected positive change in community and academic institution?

3. Have models been developed that can be used by others?

4. What has been the impact on community?

5. What has been the impact on academic institution?

6. Have external resources (e.g. grant, fund-raising) been affected by program?

7. Are results effective as judged by both community and academia?

8. Do scholar and community commit to long-term partnership?

5. Effective Presentation:

• Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present his or her work?

• Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to its intended audiences?

• Does the scholar present his or her work with clarity and integrity?

Results are presented clearly and interpretable to interdisciplinary audience

Results are presented clearly and interpretable to interdisciplinary audience

1. Has work (outcomes and process) of partnership been reviewed and disseminated in community and academic institutions/

2. Have there been presentations and publications on community-based efforts at both community and academic levels?

3. Are results disseminated in a wide variety of formats to appropriate community and academic audiences?

6. Reflective Critique:

• Does the scholar critically evaluate own work?

• Does the scholar being appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique?

• Does scholar evaluate to improve quality of future work

Limitations of one's own and other's research across disciplines are identified

Evidence for evaluating policy or program impact is available

1. What evaluation has occurred?

2. Does scholar constantly think and reflect about the activity?

3. Would community work with scholar again?

4. Would scholar work with community again?