Main considerations for yield trial site selection are the ability to discriminate among genotypes, minimize redundancy, and generate a genotype × environment interaction representative of the targeted market region. The objective was to utilize soybean (Glycine max L.) variety trial results of five relative maturity group (MG) tests at five Tennessee locations spanning 14 yr to compare test location uniqueness and/or redundancy via genetic variance estimates (estimated as twice the genetic variance among homozygous lines) and cluster analysis. Principle components analyses allowed for location comparisons of genetic variance expression among cultivars in different MG tests. Individual location, test, and year genetic variance estimates ranged from < 1-285 (Mg ha −1 ) 2 . Years and locations affected the magnitude of genetic variance, with years largely driving genetic expression within MGs in these environments. Location-induced effects were likely owing to different MGs experiencing soil moisture and temperature (day and nighttime) at varying maturity stages. Within a given location, the magnitudes of genetic variance estimates were similar among the five MGs, illustrating that glyphosate-tolerant and nontolerant cultivars had similar genetic variability. There were three sets of three locations that consistently provided nonredundant genetic expression, with two locations being duplicative. These results indicate that four of the five locations are needed, and one location could be eliminated without compromising cultivar yield trial information for five MG tests. Such analyses are worthwhile for comparing yield trial locations for their discriminating ability and representativeness that are essential for a robust variety test program within a targeted region.

It is important for yield test sites to elicit differences among genotypes, minimize redundancy of performance information, and generate a genotype × environment interaction representative of the targeted region. The objective of this study was to use corn (Zea mays L.) variety trial data from three relative maturity group (MG) tests (early, medium, and late) at five Tennessee locations spanning 14 yr to compare test location uniqueness and redundancy via genetic variance estimates and cluster analysis. Principle component analyses allowed for location comparisons of genetic variance expression among cultivars in different MG tests. Individual location–test–year genetic variance estimates ranged from <1 to 584 (Mg ha−1)2. Years and locations affected the magnitude of genetic variance, with years largely driving genetic expression within MGs in these environments. However, the late MG consistently had the greatest variance estimates. Across 14 yr, there was minimum duplicative information provided across the five yield test sites. Consequently, all locations were needed and none could be eliminated without compromising cultivar yield trial information for the three MG tests. Correlations between mean yields and genetic variance showed a weak relationship across locations (environments), years, and MG tests (r = .021); thus, high‐yielding environments did not correspond with increased genetic variance expression. These types of analyses are useful for evaluating the discriminating ability and duplicative or correlated expression of genetic information across locations for robust variety trials within and across maturity groups and targeted regions.

Before the COVID-19 crisis, in-person engagement was the main method of ensuring community participation in participatory research processes. However, the pandemic accelerated the switch to digitally-mediated participatory research methods (DMPRMs). This article presents a case study of a digitally-mediated, human-centered design (DMHCD) process enhanced by digitally-mediated community-based participatory research approaches (DMCBPR) as part of our efforts to develop a digital access-to-justice platform for military veterans and their families. We reflect on our experience of enhancing DMHCD with DMCBPR approaches and include insights about how to facilitate the transition from in-person HCD+CBPR to DMHCD-DMCBPR. We also discuss the dual challenges of combining two different approaches while shifting to a virtual/online participatory research framework. Finally, the present study aims to achieve the following objectives: first, to add to a small—but growing—body of research around digitally-mediated participatory research methods; and second, to add to the emerging literature on HCD+CBPR integration approaches to design interventions for underserved populations.

Participatory action research (PAR) methods aim to position the people who are most affected by the issue being studied as equal partners in the research process through a cyclical process of data gathering, data analysis, planning and implementing action and evaluation and reflection. In doing so, it ensures that the research better reflects participants’ ideas, priorities, and needs, thereby enhancing its validity and relevance and the support for the findings and proposed changes. Furthermore, it generates immediately applicable results. In this paper, we reflect on our experiences of developing the UK’s first access to justice platform for veterans and their families through an ongoing PAR project that brought together armed forces veterans, representatives from veterans' service providers, and the Veterans Legal Link team members comprising of legal academics, lawyers, sociologists, computer software designers and graphic designers to collect, interpret, and apply community information to address issues related to the delivery of access to justice. We present findings from Stages 1 and 2 of our three-stage iterative research process which includes the following steps: Understanding and cross-checking the lived experience of the veteran community (Stage 1), developing and testing a prototype of the access to justice platform (Stage 2) and creating the final product and giving real users an opportunity to use the platform (Stage 3). Data collection and analysis from Stage 1 of the study informed the themes that underpinned Stage 2. Specifically, data was collected through the following methods: co-facilitated focus group discussions, a web survey that was codesigned with veteran community stakeholders and remote and digitally enabled ethnographic research methods. We include several reflections that may help legal practitioners and researchers interested in applying PAR within the area of access to justice and the field of legal research.