Community‐based participatory research (CBPR) is generally understood as a process by which decision‐making power and ownership are shared between the researcher and the community involved, bi‐directional research capacity and co‐learning are promoted, and new knowledge is co‐created and disseminated in a manner that is mutually beneficial for those involved. Within the field of Canadian geography we are seeing emerging interest in using CBPR as a way of conducting meaningful and relevant research with Indigenous communities. However, individual interpretations of CBPR's tenets and the ways in which CBPR is operationalized are, in fact, highly variable. In this article we report the findings of an exploratory qualitative case study involving semi‐structured, open‐ended interviews with Canadian university‐based geographers and social scientists in related disciplines who engage in CBPR to explore the relationship between their conceptual understanding of CBPR and their applied research. Our findings reveal some of the tensions for university‐based researchers concerning CBPR in theory and practice.

Regulatory properties of a 1.4-kilobase promoter fragment of the bean chalcone synthase CHS8 gene were examined by analysis of glucuronidase (GUS) activity in transgenic tobacco containing a CHS8-GUS gene fusion. The promoter was highly active in the root apical meristem and in petals, exclusively in those cells of the inner epidermis that accumulate anthocyanins. The gene fusion was only weakly expressed in other floral organs, mature leaves, and stems. The early stages of seedling development were characterized by an apparent wound induction of the promoter in the endosperm and strong expression in the immature root, which became localized to the apical meristem and perivascular tissue at the root-hypocotyl junction. The promoter became active during lateral root formation in both the new root and damaged tissue of the main root. The gene fusion was also expressed in greening cotyledons and primary leaves but not in the shoot apical meristem. Light modulated expression in the cotyledons and root-shoot junction but had no effect on other aspects of the developmental program. Wounding or fungal elicitor treatment of mature leaves activated the promoter in a well-defined zone adjacent to the stress site. Stress induction occurred in mesophyll and vascular tissues as well as in the epidermis. We conclude that the CHS8 promoter contains cis-elements required to establish temporal and spatial control of flavonoid biosynthesis during development and in response to diverse environmental stimuli.

Assessment for comorbid anxiety disorder and inclusion of parent rating in this assessment are important components of ADHD treatment in children and adolescents.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. REPORT DATE SEP 20052 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution unlimited SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESThe original document contains color images. Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited.Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews. ForewordThis work is dedicated to LTC Charles Buehring, SPC Adam Kinser, SPC Joseph A. Jeffries, SPC Jonathan J. Santos, and SGT Michael G. Owen, and their families. These psychological operations soldiers lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan while practicing their chosen profession, which so often saves the lives of U.S. military personnel as well as other combatants and noncombatants. Our hope is that this report will honor their sacrifice by providing insights on means to sharpen psychological operations capabilities.Dr. Chris Lamb, a senior fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), 1 led the research team, which was comprised of Dr. Paris Genalis, the National Defense University Chair for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Joel Wiegert, INSS research assistant; and Jason Barden, Ellen Chou-Gu, Ellen Corbin, and Francisco Escalante, research assistants from Booz Allen Hamilton. Dr. Genalis was responsible for the chapter on "Equipment and Technology." Dr. Lamb was responsible for the other chapters. The research assistants collected and analyzed data and drafted major sections of the report, including those on PSYOP equipment, PSYOP experience in recent operations, and historic PSYOP lessons learned from stability operations.The findings in this study are based on a range of primary and secondary sources that are identified in the bibliography and footnotes. Without imputing responsibility for any of the report's conclusions, the research team would especially like to thank COL Jack Summe and the members ...

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. REPORT DATE SEP 20052 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution unlimited SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESThe original document contains color images. Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited.Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews. ForewordThis work is dedicated to LTC Charles Buehring, SPC Adam Kinser, SPC Joseph A. Jeffries, SPC Jonathan J. Santos, and SGT Michael G. Owen, and their families. These psychological operations soldiers lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan while practicing their chosen profession, which so often saves the lives of U.S. military personnel as well as other combatants and noncombatants. Our hope is that this report will honor their sacrifice by providing insights on means to sharpen psychological operations capabilities.Dr. Chris Lamb, a senior fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), 1 led the research team, which was comprised of Dr. Paris Genalis, the National Defense University Chair for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Joel Wiegert, INSS research assistant; and Jason Barden, Ellen Chou-Gu, Ellen Corbin, and Francisco Escalante, research assistants from Booz Allen Hamilton. Dr. Genalis was responsible for the chapter on "Equipment and Technology." Dr. Lamb was responsible for the other chapters. The research assistants collected and analyzed data and drafted major sections of the report, including those on PSYOP equipment, PSYOP experience in recent operations, and historic PSYOP lessons learned from stability operations.The findings in this study are based on a range of primary and secondary sources that are identified in the bibliography and footnotes. Without imputing responsibility for any of the report's conclusions, the research team would especially like to thank COL Jack Summe and the members ...