Abstract

No abstract

Research on evaluation theories, methods, and practices has increased considerably in the past decade. Even so, little is known about whether published findings from research on evaluation are read by evaluators and whether such findings influence evaluators' thinking about evaluation or their evaluation practice. To address these questions, and others, a random sample of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members and a purposive sample of prominent evaluation theorists and scholars were surveyed. A majority of AEA members (80.95% + 7.60%) and sampled theorists and scholars (84.21%) regularly read research on evaluation and indicate that research on evaluation has influenced their thinking about evaluation and their evaluation practice (97.00% + 3.38% and 94.00% + 4.79%, for AEA members, and 100% and 100%, for prominent theorists and scholars, respectively).

Despite an extensive body of research showing the negative consequences of weight stigma, healthcare providers (HCPs) continue to marginalize fat 1 patients through negative attitudes, stereotypical beliefs, and discriminatory actions (Daníelsdóttir et al., 2010;Phelan et al., 2015). Weight stigma is present through all stages of medical training, where derogatory comments about fat patients abound (see Flint, 2015). It is therefore imperative to combat weight stigma early in medical education. Reviews of weight stigma reduction research have shown that existing interventions are ineffective, or, at best, only minimally effective (Alberga et al., 2016;Lee et al., 2014).There is a clear need for new approaches in this field. Fat studies is an interdisciplinary field of scholarship that may offer new insights for intervening in weight stigma, guided by three tenets: first, the oppression of fat people exists on a structural level; second, fat bodies are part of the natural diversity of body sizes; and third, any knowledge produced about fat people should include fat people