Loyola Marymount University

Purpose This article advances methodological possibilities for studying organizational resilience by combining Positive Deviance Case Selection (PDCS) with the Formative Influences Timeline (FIT) methods. It responds to the need for approaches that can capture the complexity of resilience as a communicative and materially enacted process in times of crisis. Design/methodology/approach Drawing from a case study of Apex for Youth, a New York–based Asian American nonprofit that thrived after the COVID-19 pandemic, the article demonstrates how PDCS enables researchers to identify organizations that not only endured crisis but flourished under conditions of utter constraint. It also shows how FIT can be used to uncover how resilience is triggered, made sense of and enacted across time and roles. Unlike conventional interviews, FIT surfaces lived rhythms of decision-making, emotional labor and values-work that are often omitted from official accounts or managerialist frames. Findings Taken together, these methods reveal the distributed, embodied and co-constructed nature of resilience in mission-driven work. They illustrate how resilience unfolds not as a linear process but through overlapping and recursive responses to crisis, often shaped by personal commitments and ethical tensions. Originality/value By treating difference and reflexivity as generative of insight in both case selection and data collection, these approaches bridge the gap between research and practice. They offer textured, process and practice-centered perspectives into what holds organizations together when familiar structures fall away and contribute to methodologically imaginative research in organizational communication and resilience.

The field of developmental science is increasingly interested in conducting research that is more representative, equitable, inclusive and generalizable. One way to achieve these aims is to conduct research that positions communities as key collaborators and central contributors to our scientific inquiries. These principles are evident in community science approaches like community-based participatory research (CBPR) and participatory action research (PAR). We argue that CBPR and PAR can be implemented by developmental scientists. Here, we describe two initiatives that utilized CBPR and PAR. The first initiative is Playful Learning Landscapes (PLL). PLL embeds research from the learning sciences into public spaces to offer playful learning opportunities for children and families, and community science practices are leveraged throughout the process. The second initiative is the Galápagos Education and Research Alliance (GERA). GERA harnesses the tools of community science by working directly with communities in the fragile environment of Galápagos to gather data about ecosystem health and build community-based plans for climate change adaptation. Together, these two initiatives offer rich examples of how CBPR and PAR principles engender active participation from the community throughout the design and evaluation of a research project. We discuss the opportunities and challenges of using community-centred approaches.

Abstract Humans are not omniscient. For individuals, appropriately reckoning with intellectual limitations requires intellectual humility or acknowledging the boundaries of their knowledge. Adolescence is a time of immense developmental potential, but is intellectual humility valuable for adolescents to develop, can they develop it, and how might it be developed? Rooted in recent research, in this article, we describe why intellectual humility benefits adolescents in intellectual, social, and civic domains. We also explain why adolescents have the capacity to develop intellectual humility due to developmental changes in both cognitive sophistication and self-understanding. Finally, drawing on an emerging evidence base, we describe how experiences in school shape the development of intellectual humility and we identify priorities for future work in this area.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature and generate evidence and gap maps examining randomized controlled trial (RCT) interventions and outcome measures for patellofemoral pain (PFP). DESIGN: A systematic evidence and gap map. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed, CINAHL Complete via EBSCO, PEDro, Scopus, SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), Embase via Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed RCTs, pilot RCTs, and pilot feasibility RCTs evaluating interventions for PFP. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were mapped against outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias, and the PFP diagnosis checklist was used to assess the criteria used in each study to confirm a diagnosis of PFP. RESULTS: A total of 307 studies were included. The most frequently included intervention was physical intervention, particularly therapeutic exercises (n = 281, 82%); 59 studies (19%) included nonphysical interventions. Pain outcomes were included in 274 studies (89%), and patient-reported physical function in 216 (70%). Other outcomes, such as activity or movement-related psychological factors, quality of life, and sleep, were infrequently assessed (each <10%). Two hundred seven studies (67%) were at high risk of bias, and 45 studies (15%) met the recommended PFP diagnostic criteria checklist. CONCLUSION: Among 307 RCTs, with approximately three quarters published in the past 10 years, there was an uneven focus on physical interventions and pain and physical function outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2026;56(2):98-108. Epub 5 January 2026. doi:10.2519/jospt.2026.13511.