LIA Recognition & Research Roadmap
Logosynthesis International Association

Recognition & Research
Roadmap

Two parallel tracks toward EAP scientific validation. Click any segment to explore its scope, responsibilities, and connection to the 15 Questions.

Tracks
Track A — EAP Recognition (Alan)
Track B — Research & Evidence (Suzanne)
Shared — Both tracks required
A EAP Recognition Lead: Alan
1
Stage 1
Theoretical Translation
Alan
›
Stage 2
EAP Institutional Process
Alan
Stage 3
Chapter Activation
Alan
Hypotheses from A1 unlock Track B Stages 2 & 3
B Research Lead: Suzanne
1
Stage 1
Research Preparation
Suzanne
›
2
Stage 2 — Unlocked by A1
Study Design
Suzanne
›
3
Stage 3 — Feeds into A2
Evidence Production
Suzanne

Shared questions (Q2, Q8, Q10) require both tracks working in concert — theoretical articulation from Track A and documented evidence from Track B. Neither track alone can answer these fully. Track B Stage 3 evidence feeds directly into the Track A Stage 2 EAP submission.

LIA Recognition & Research — Milestones
Logosynthesis International Association — Governance

Recognition & Research
Milestones

Governance milestones for monitoring progress across both tracks. Click any segment to view the full milestone detail, timeline, and dependencies.

Tracks
Track A — EAP Recognition (Alan)
Track B — Research & Evidence (Suzanne)
Dependency / Governance Note
A EAP Recognition Lead: Alan
Stage 1
Theoretical Translation
  • A1.1Working group constitutedM+3
  • A1.2Draft Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7 completeM+9
  • A1.3All 15 Questions draftedM+15
  • A1.4Internal peer review completeM+18
  • A1.5Hypotheses handed to Track B ⟶M+18
Alan
Stage 2 — Parallel with Stage 3
EAP Institutional Process
  • A2.1EAP Ordinary Org acceptedM+6
  • A2.2Full application submittedAfter A1.4
  • A2.3First EWOC meeting attendedNext cycle
  • A2.4Assessor reports received & response submitted+6 wks
  • A2.5EWO status grantedYear 4–6
Alan
Stage 3 — Parallel with Stage 2
Chapter Activation
  • A3.16-country presence documentedWith A2.2
  • A3.2Chapters briefed on EWO implicationsAfter A2.5
  • A3.3First chapter initiates national association membership+12 mo
Alan
Milestone A1.5 unlocks Track B Stages 2 & 3
B Research Lead: Suzanne
Stage 1 — Parallel with Track A Stage 1
Research Preparation
  • B1.1Research Capacity Survey distributedM+2
  • B1.2Research Capacity Register compiledM+4
  • B1.3SCED methodology confirmedM+3
  • B1.4Ethics pathway identified (2+ countries)M+6
Suzanne
Stage 2 — Unlocked by A1.5
Study Design
  • B2.1First SCED protocol designed+3 mo
  • B2.2Ethics approval obtained+3–6 mo
  • B2.3Second protocol designed (different country)Concurrent
Suzanne
Stage 3 — Feeds into A2
Evidence Production
  • B3.1First study completed & written up+6–12 mo
  • B3.2First peer-reviewed submission made+2 mo
  • B3.3First publication accepted+12–24 mo
  • B3.4Evidence package assembled for EWOWith A2.2
Suzanne
Governance Note — Peer-Reviewed Publication

Milestone B3.3 — the first peer-reviewed publication — is the most time-consuming and least controllable milestone on the entire roadmap. Review cycles are unpredictable; rejection and resubmission should be planned for. The Board should treat peer-reviewed publication as a quality aspiration, not a gate that blocks the EWO submission. The EAP accepts case studies, internal documents, and preliminary studies as valid evidence. The EWO application can proceed with the existing evidence base — the Jones dissertation, the von Blumenthal poster, and the Beltran-Salanguit study — supplemented by the theoretical framework from Track A Stage 1. Publication strengthens the application. It does not need to delay it.

Shared milestones (A2.2 + B3.4): The EWO application package and the evidence assembly happen in concert. Both leads must coordinate timing so that Track B evidence is ready when Track A submits. M = month of Board mandate. All timelines are indicative; the full cycle to EWO status is realistically 4 to 6 years from Board mandate.