Editors’ notes

Dear readers, For the first time in the history of the American Evaluation Association (AEA), New Directions for Evaluation (NDE), one of AEA's flagship journals, is releasing an issue entirely dedicated to LGBTQ+ Evaluation. Publishing this volume has been a dream of ours for years and we are thrilled to see it come true. More than that, we are profoundly grateful that you are now part of making that dream into reality. We want to welcome you into this issue by sharing a little bit about why LGBTQ+ Evaluation matters, what you'll find inside each chapter, who this issue is for, and the impact we hope this work will have. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, Two-Spirit, and additional sexual or gender minority communities (LGBTQ+) are marginalized and highly stigmatized populations both globally and domestically. LGBTQ+ Evaluation, then, is broadly defined as any evaluation which engages with members of the LGBTQ+ community in any way, whether as partners, evaluands, participants, or even evaluators themselves. Due to the minoritized and marginalized status of LGBTQ+ communities, LGBTQ+ Evaluation is easily understood within the frameworks of Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE) (Hood, Hopson, & Frierson, 2015; Hood, Hopson, & Kirkhart, 2015), Equitable Evaluation (Equitable Evaluation Initiative, 2017, 2020), and Transformative Evaluation (Mertens, 2017; Mertens & Wilson, 2019). As we have previously written (Phillips et al., 2022), given its broad definition, LGBTQ+ Evaluation is not limited to these approaches; it can occur under any framework, in any context, and can be conducted by any evaluator regardless of background or identity. An evaluation can become an LGBTQ+ Evaluation through an act as simple as the inclusion of LGBTQ+ demographic data capture in pre-/post-testing. You may find yourself thinking at this point: “Hang on, wouldn't this definition mean that any evaluation is LGBTQ+ Evaluation?” Correct! Welcome to the community – we're thrilled to have you. However, this versatility comes with challenges. Currently, no standards of practice exist to guide LGBTQ+ Evaluation (Phillips et al., 2022). Although AEA has published guiding principles which state the importance of respect for persons, including those defined by gender, power, and underrepresentation, and the importance of evaluators working towards common good and equity, there are no specific guidelines available to explain what this means, theoretically or practically, when it comes to working with LGBTQ+ people (American Evaluation Association, 2018). Similarly, although sexual orientation and gender are included in AEA's statement on cultural competency (American Evaluation Association, 2011), the statement includes no guidance to clarify what culturally competent evaluation with LGBTQ+ persons actually involves. This issue is not unique to AEA – many peer associations have struggled to articulate clear guidance. Unsurprisingly, this shortcoming is reflected in the published evaluation literature by a panoply of problematic approaches to LGBTQ+ work, which rarely, if ever, specifically acknowledge LGBTQ+ communities (Phillips et al., 2022). Overwhelmingly, evidence indicates that the needs and experiences of LGBTQ+ communities have long been neglected, if not overtly dismissed, within the evaluation field (Miller, 2018). One might perhaps assume, given this lack of focus, that there is no need for an emphasis on LGBTQ+ issues in evaluation, or that it is, at best, a niche issue or “special interests” topic. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Considering how a program, project, intervention, or event will impact LGBTQ+ persons is vital in many contexts. For example, in educational settings, the experiences we consider in our teaching (McCann & Brown, 2018) and the ways in which we ensure that content is meaningful for all groups (Phillips et al., 2020) have serious implications for LGBTQ+ people. You may also find LGBTQ+ Evaluation necessary in the context of a novel viral pandemic, where whether or not we have inclusive data determines our ability to respond effectively to the needs of marginalized communities (Cahill, Grasso, Keuroghlian, Sciortino, & Mayer, 2020; Phillips II et al., 2020). In fact, whether you have realized it already or not, LGBTQ+ Evaluation will always be relevant to you. One can never assume that a given program, project, intervention, or event is not relevant to LGBTQ+ people, because LGBTQ± people are everywhere (Flores, Herman, Gates, & Brown, 2016; Gates, 2011; The Williams Institute, 2019), and identification within the community is becoming more common (Phillips II et al., 2019). LGBTQ+ people may not always be visibly recognizable as such (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007) or may refuse recognition within limited categorizations (Davis, 2019), but it is our responsibility as evaluators to ensure that LGBTQ+ people are visible in our work if they choose to be. If we are not doing so, then we are failing to meet, or even to understand, LGBTQ+ community needs. The problem, then, is clear: although there is a need for LGBTQ+ Evaluation to expand significantly to ensure the field is best serving this population, no guidance currently exists to inform this work, which carries a resultant risk of such activities either failing to occur, or occurring in a problematic, harmful, and/or non-responsive manner. As we have written previously (Phillips II et al., 2022) this scarcity is no accident, but a manifestation of societal cis/heteronormativity. This NDE issue is designed to fill that gap and push back against these oppressive norms; to begin the process of articulating a new paradigm within evaluation which centers the needs, experiences, and importance of LGBTQ+ persons to our field. Our focus is not on prescribing a singular approach – as such, we are intentional in our framing that this NDE issue does not present a manual for “best practices” – best practices are highly contextual and will change and evolve over time, thus a “one size fits all” method of LGBTQ+ Evaluation cannot stand. Rather, we envision a philosophy built around shared principles which can be applied across evaluation approaches and contexts. Through developing a shared set of principles and perspectives which centers LGBTQ+ persons, we encourage work within theory, practice, and the space in between which advances the lives of all LGBTQ+ persons. In other words, this NDE issue is part of what we see as an overdue paradigmatic shift in the field of evaluation, away from practices which ignore, minimize, flatten, or otherwise marginalize LGBTQ+ communities, and towards an epistemological orientation to evaluative theory, praxis, and practice which uplifts LGBTQ+ lives as valuable, and centers LGBTQ+ joy as a priority for our work. This NDE issue is an opportunity for LGBTQ+ Evaluators to leverage a turning point in which our work has entered our field's mainstream discourses, and to embed core philosophies, principles, and practices of LGBTQ+ Evaluation into the very nature of who evaluators are, what we do, and how we do it. This NDE issue is conceptually divided into three parts: In Part One: Foundations, the first four chapters of the special issue establish core principles, practices, and ways of thinking which ground the praxis of LGBTQ+ Evaluation. Chapter One, led by our guest editorial team and a close colleague, draws on a myriad of theoretical and empirical scholarship to advance eight Principles of LGBTQ+ Evaluation which construct LGBTQ+ Evaluation as a praxis applicable across evaluation theories and methodologies. We explore each Principle's roots, the context in which we identified a need for its existence, and examples of how it can be applied in practice. The second chapter hones in on questions of LGBTQ+ data collection, construction, and application using a lens of storytelling—readers are challenged to think critically about the LGBTQ+ demographic data they collect, what it means (and doesn't mean), and how it can best be used to advance LGBTQ+ joy and liberation. Demographic data, language, and terminology are among the most commonly discussed topics when LGBTQ+ Evaluation is brought up; through using critical scholarship to rigorously interrogate common assumptions regarding data, language, and framing of LGBTQ+ experience, we offer an opportunity for evaluators to approach LGBTQ+ data critically and reflexively to strengthen the validity and impact of any LGBTQ+ Evaluation. Next, the authors of Chapter 3 invite readers to join them in a reflective meditation on their own queer evaluation practices, how they came to the work they do, and what LGBTQ+ Evaluation means, practically, to them. Their vulnerability and openness welcomes readers to practice the same, whether they approach this work from within or outside of a particular LGBTQ+ community. To close Part One, Chapter 4 brings us into a conversation between LGBTQ+-serving Community Based Organization leaders, who discuss what equitable and effective evaluation partnership means to them. We are adamant that LGBTQ+ Evaluation cannot solely be defined and demarcated from within the ivory tower. Chapter 4 embraces this idea by centering the voices and interests of LGBTQ+ evaluands; readers should remember the centrality of relationship building to all of their work, particularly work with marginalized and minoritized communities. In Part Two: Applications, authors present four case studies of LGBTQ+ Evaluation in practice, each with a reflective emphasis on process and decision-making which help to illuminate the choices made by the evaluators and how those choices helped to strengthen their LGBTQ+ evaluations. There is no one right way to do LGBTQ+ Evaluation – rather each demands a critical and contextually-informed approach; these four chapters, each in distinct contexts, can help readers imagine their own approach for their context. In Chapter 5, we open the section with a critically reflexive study of how LGBTQ+ Evaluation principles helped a team of evaluators re-imagine their work and uplift autonomy among Two-Spirit, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer (2SGBTQ+) men who engage in sexualized drug use – AKA Party & Play (PnP). The team's historically informed, critical perspective allowed their evaluation to transform into a rigorous, liberatory celebration of the health of 2SGBTQ+ men who PnP. Next, Chapter 6 invites us into the process of evaluation co-creation through collaboratively telling the story of a program for LGBTQ2S+ houseless youth from the perspectives of evaluators, project staff, and youth service recipients. The authors present their reflections on the spectrum of co-creation, and how their own experiences can inform and strengthen co-created LGBTQ+ Evaluation work. Then, Chapter 7 brings a structural focus to this NDE issue by analyzing the inclusion of sexual minorities in U.S. National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS), with an emphasis on erasure of bisexuality even within erstwhile progressive policy. We note that this policy focus is particularly relevant for U.S.-based evaluators to consider as our country currently faces a wave of anti-LGBTQ+, and in particular anti-trans, legislative violence. Finally, Chapter 8 describes the tensions, challenges, and successes of a multinational LGBTQ+ Human Rights Evaluation in the global South, emphasizing the obligations of global North evaluators who partner with communities and organizations in the global South to advance LGBTQ+ Human Rights. Chapter 8's recounting of a successful, multinational partnership process can help readers approaching complex and occasionally fraught sociocultural dynamics through centering community needs and engaging with an open, critical mindset. In Part Three: Futures, we turn our eyes towards what comes next for the field, with an emphasis on how LGBTQ+ Evaluation, as a framework, can be expanded, adapted, and adopted for maximal impact. Chapter 9 opens this section with an emphasis on pedagogy, and invites evaluator educators to consider how they might contribute to a more LGBTQ+ responsive and inclusive evaluation workforce through adaptations to their curricula and classroom environment. LGBTQ+ Evaluation education is about both what we teach, and how we teach; we hope Chapter 9 helps to advance the conversation around how we prepare evaluators to contribute effectively to justice and liberation for all marginalized peoples. Finally, we close our NDE issue with Chapter 10 by reframing an ending to a beginning. This work has been a labor of love for all of us who are part of this NDE issue; as we put it out into the world, we cannot wait to see how it is digested, picked apart, reconstituted, and reimagined. Chapter 10 begins that process by inviting 10 evaluators who were not featured as authors in the special issue to contribute their perspectives on what LGBTQ+ Evaluation means, how they hope to see the principles we propose evolve, and what they envision for the future of this work. This praxis is not ours alone, but ours together, and we are thrilled to conclude our NDE issue on this collective note. No matter your training, experience, background, or identity, LGBTQ+ Evaluation is relevant to your work. The content of this NDE issue has been intentionally curated to include depictions of and reflections on a wide variety of evaluation contexts, including clinical research, pedagogy, policy, global public health, and data science, among others. The chapters in this NDE issue draw from an expansive sample of evaluation theories and methods, including but not limited to Culturally Responsive Evaluation, Developmental Evaluation, Transformative Evaluation, Equitable Evaluation, Indigenous Evaluation, and theories of Evaluation Education, among others. Authors represent a diversity of personal and professional experience, including researchers, consultants, community-based organization staff, students, and educators with both evaluators and evaluands represented; all authors are LGBTQ+ community members or else LGBTQ+ community allies. This NDE issue contains something for everyone, and is designed to elicit self-reflection and critical considerations of the scope and importance of LGBTQ+ Evaluation, and how it can be put into practice no matter your context or focus. This is not the final word in the development of a shared praxis on LGBTQ+ Evaluation, nor is it the first. This issue's publication is a critical inflection point—through this issue, we hope our field can collectively commit to a paradigm shift which sees a renewed valuing and commitment to LGBTQ+ life, joy, and liberation. This collection is intended to make visible a vital conversation, one which we hope will continue within our field for many years to come. Thank you in advance for your investment in this body of work. We look forward to seeing your work added to the constellation of ideas and innovations that is LGBTQ+ Evaluation. Sincerely, Dylan, Esrea, Erik, and Gregory Ms. Dylan Felt, MPH (she/her) served as the lead editor for this NDE issue. She is a Research Project Manager for the Evaluation, Data Integration, and Technical Assistance (EDIT) Program at Northwestern University, where she oversees community-engaged research and evaluation projects. As a transgender woman in public health, her work is grounded in critical theoretical traditions and centers the expertise, autonomy, and self-determination of marginalized communities whom research or evaluation projects might aim or claim to serve. She emphasizes using research and evaluation as tools for meaningful praxis and transformative social change. In particular, she believes in uplifting transgender community knowledge and leadership in pursuit of trans liberation and health equity. Mx. Esrea Perez-Bill (she/they) served as the second editor for this NDE issue. Esrea is a Research Project Coordinator for the EDIT Program at Northwestern University. She is responsible for coordinating Training and Technical Assistance. Their work focuses on connecting theory to practice when developing Adult Education and Technical Assistance offerings for programmatic stakeholders. Through Training and Technical Assistance, Mx. Perez-Bill ensures that critical, liberatory pedagogies frame the adult education the EDIT program offers in order to advance capacity for systems change among all program stakeholders. Mr. Erik Elías Glenn, MSW (he/él) served as the third editor for this NDE issue. He is a mixed-heritage, Black and Mexican, gay cis man, originally from southwest Detroit. He is the senior project manager with the EDIT Program at Northwestern University, where he oversees technical assistance and evaluation services delivered to community-based and health services organizations in partnership with the Chicago Department of Public Health. He is a former executive director of Chicago Black Gay Men's Caucus, where he engaged in community and regional planning to improve health outcomes among Black gay, bisexual, and same gender loving men. Throughout his public health career, Erik has worked to improve the long-term health outcomes of LGBTQ+ BIPOC through Chicago-based HIV elimination initiatives such as Getting to Zero Illinois, Black Treatment Advocates Network, and Chicago Area HIV Integrated Services Council. Dr. Gregory Phillips II, PhD, MS (he/him) served as the senior editor for this NDE issue. He is an Assistant Professor in the Departments of Medical Social Sciences and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University NU, and founder of the EDIT Program. He is an infectious diseases epidemiologist whose career spans over a decade of exploring the complex factors that disproportionately impact the health of minoritized individuals, particularly sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals. Drawing on his experience as a gay man, he uses a community-led approach in all his work, and has been one of the leading developers of several new program evaluation frameworks, including LGBTQ+ Evaluation and Systems-Informed Empowerment Evaluation. He serves as Associate Editor for the American Journal of Evaluation, Chair of the LGBTQ Topical Interest Group (TIG) and Program Chair of the Social Network Analysis TIG for the American Evaluation Association, is Affiliate Faculty with the Center for Culturally Responsive Evaluation and Assessment (CREA) and the Centre for Multicultural Policy and Program Evaluation, and was recently named to the Evaluation Policy Task Force (EPTF) in AEA.