The purpose of this version of ARINA’s Integral Evaluation Process^{tm, sm} (IEP) is to apply it to written works submitted to Integral Review (IR). We aim to do this in a way that authors can opt to use it as a self-evaluation process for their own work. This process is as much about reflecting on the intentions, conceptions, attitudes, and assumptions we bring to our work, as it is about examining the actual content of the work.

In general, when the subject matter of a work is treated in a way that is consistent with the IEP items, the work will meet IR’s integral criteria. Depending on the focus of a particular work, some items may not apply, or may not readily appear to apply. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or doubts about how to interpret or apply the following items.

1. Motivations. In conveying your subject, however it is focused, do you manage to take into consideration that there are larger contexts this subject is a part of? Does the way you focus on your subject end up including other relevant aspects of it, or other subjects that warrant attention or acknowledgement, so that you convey a sufficiently full, and realistic, picture that takes the good of the whole into consideration?

 2. Visions and Strategy.

1. Is your strategy free from dualistic thinking, in the sense of pitting an idealized vision of what ought to be, against a depreciating image of what is, in favor of a processual and integrative approach to individual and social change and development?
   
2. In your efforts to discuss change, do you manage to refer to and consider others as human beings with their own perspectives, and not like pieces on a chessboard that you subject to your strategies and recommendations.

3. Self-awareness.

1. When you present your perspective, are you able to also convey that it is one among many other possible perspectives and interpretations about the same subject or event? Are you also able to present alternative perspectives and allow both them and yours to be considered by readers?  
2. Do you sound defensive as you assert your viewpoints? If someone wanted to write a response or critique of your work, does your tone suggest you are receptive, or likely to attack? 

4. Identifications (self-embeddedness).

1. Do you maintain a non-adversarial stance, and avoid placing blame on others or present others as “problems”? 
2. As appropriate for your focus, does your writing avoid the impression you are stuck inside your own orbit or point of view? 

5. Interpretations of the world around us and in us.

1. Does your work reflect your awareness that situations can be very complex and layered? Do you take into account how they involve many events, conditions, and time scales? Have you examined your thinking for signs of treating complex issues as if they were simple?
2. Do you understand enough about the levels of individual and/or social development involved in your subject matter, to include their relevance in your subject? If you do not know enough about development’s levels or how they might alter your interpretations, can you acknowledge this transparently in your work?
3. Do your recommendations and interpretations take into account that people and social systems at different levels of development may have very different reactions, interpretations, or visions about how your work applies to their experience? 
4. Is your perspective sensitive to the realities that some individuals and social groups need environments that are respectfully tailored to “where they are” in order to be healthy and functional, and do your ideas include ways to facilitate healthy development, as appropriate?