No abstract

Defining, compartmentalizing, and differentiating among stakeholder involvement approaches to evaluation, such as collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation, enhance conceptual clarity. It also informs practice, helping evaluators select the most appropriate approach for the task at hand. This view of science and practice is presented in response to the argument of Cousins, Whitmore, and Shulha (2013) that efforts to differentiate among approaches have been ''unwarranted and ultimately unproductive'' (p. 15).Over the past couple of decades, members of the American Evaluation Association's (AEA) Collaborative, Participatory, and Empowerment Evaluation Topical Interest Group (CPE-TIG) have labored to build a strong theoretical and empirical foundation of stakeholder involvement approaches in evaluation. This includes identifying the essential features of collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation. It also includes highlighting similarities and differences among these three major approaches to stakeholder involvement.Our primary disagreement with the article by Cousins et al. concerns the value and appropriateness of (1) differentiating among the stakeholder involvement approaches; (2) misleading characterization;(3) confounding and comingling terms, and (4) using collaborative inquiry as the umbrella term for stakeholder involvement approaches.

Nurse managers in focus groups reported that new graduates of all types of prelicensure programs were not prepared clinically for beginning practice. Graduates of accelerated programs had similar knowledge and skills as other new nurses but also brought work experience and maturity to the clinical setting, which fostered their transition to the nursing role. Nurse managers reported generational differences among graduates beyond their educational preparation and explained how those differences affected their learning of new technologies. Educational implications are discussed.

This article presents a methodological approach to studying and evaluating increasingly complex regional food systems. Social network analysis has been used to measure collaborations in health and education and is potentially a tool for regional food systems. The authors demonstrate the methodological advantages of using social network analysis to track changes in collaboration over time, illustrated through a case study of a multi-tiered, three-year food systems project in North Carolina. There are multiple benefits of using social network analysis; for food systems two of the most useful are its ability to create illuminating visualizations of collaborators, and its ability to use inferential statistics to evaluate significance of changes in food system projects.

The hazard assessment of a telescoped Miyaura borylation and Suzuki coupling reaction employing bis­(pinacolato)­diboron (BisPin), used in the developmental synthesis of an intermediate for abemaciclib, led to the observation of hydrogen being generated. Quantitative headspace GC and solution 11B NMR were used to show that the rapid decomposition of the excess BisPin from the borylation under the aqueous basic conditions of the Suzuki reaction was responsible for H2 generation. The moles of H2 observed were found equal to the BisPin excess, which is rationalized by mass balance and a stoichiometric reaction. The possible generation of the stoichiometric levels of H2 should be considered in hazard assessments of this class of reaction. Kinetic and process modeling was used to minimize the risk upon scale-up, and results for commercial manufacturing batches are presented, which showed good agreement with the lab scale data. Furthermore, the hydrogen evolution potentials of other common borylating agents including bisboronic acid (BBA) and pinacol borane were demonstrated.