Denna undersökning visar hur några utvalda fritidshem aktivt arbetar för att motverka mobbning. Den belyser också vilka former mobbning kan ta sig i uttryck på samt hur begreppet definieras. Frågeställningar är enligt följande:Hur arbetar man konkret för att motverka mobbning inom våra utvalda fritidshem? Hur definieras mobbning och hur kan det ta sig i uttryck?För att besvara dessa har vi använt oss av semistrukturerade intervjuer av rektorer och fritidspedagoger. Informanternas svar har vi sedan jämfört med varandra för att upptäcka gemensamma teman och sedan analyserat dessa med hjälp av tidigare forskning och litteratur.Resultatet av undersökningen visar att mobbning definieras som negativa handlingar som utförs under en längre tid och att det kan ta sig i uttryck på ett fysiskt, psykiskt, verbalt, icke-verbalt och digitalt sätt.Det visar också att man på våra utvalda fritidshem motverkar mobbning genom socialt samspel, rastaktiviteter, samarbete med övrig skolpersonal, elever och föräldrar för att få fram ett gemensamt förhållningssätt och genom att som ledare vara tydlig mot mobbning.

Disease is ubiquitous. Disease afflicts humans. It afflicts animals. It afflicts plants. People refer to disease in their everyday conversation. Newspapers comment upon it. Parliaments enact legislation regarding it. Novelists write about it. Artists depict it. Physicians, veterinary surgeons and agriculturalists seek to combat it. Insurance companies offer reimbursement against it. Anthropologists study it. Philosophers debate its nature, and dictionaries define it. Disease looms large in human consciousness. One might presume that, since disease is so important in daily life, human beings would know exactly what they mean by it. Most people seem to believe instinctively that they understand the nature of disease, and that their ideas about it coincide with other people�s ideas. The definition of disease therefore arouses little controversy in everyday conversation. People use the word disease as readily as they use the words spade, or table or nose. They suggest, when they joke that somebody calls a spade a spade, that the nature of the implement used to dig the garden is so obvious that it requires no further definition. Similarly with a table or a nose. They might debate how many legs a table must have, but�regardless of the answer�rarely deny that it is a table; whilst every human must surely know what a nose is. This high level of agreement about so many commonly used terms perhaps creates an assumption that the meaning of disease is equally obvious and requires no further analysis. Is this, however, really the case? Disease is a somewhat less concrete phenomenon than is a spade or a table or a nose. Its existence, most would agree, is incontrovertible, but its nature is less clear. It is something that seems to befall people and animals and plants. It rarely serves any useful purpose. It often carries dire implications. It is something that most of us would prefer not to have, but rarely succeed in avoiding. It commonly comes unannounced and at inconvenient times. It usually causes distress, but not always. It can have a fatal outcome. Some people appear more prone to it that others. It sometimes sweeps through whole populations producing social devastation, but its manifestations vary. Some diseases affect a person�s whole body, others merely a part of the body; some affect some parts of the body, others other parts. Some diseases only affect humans, whereas others affect both humans and animals. Some spread from animals to humans, others from humans to humans, and others still do not appear to spread at all. Some diseases affect plants, and few that affect plants seem to affect humans, but some humans can acquire diseases when they come into contact with plants that appear to have no diseases. Any reasonable analysis of the nature of disease must account for all these aspects and many others also. The nature of disease is a topic that has attracted the attention of physicians, scientists and philosophers over millennia. The close association that existed between medicine and philosophy in the classical Egyptian, Palestinian and Greek eras ensured that scholars who flourished in those societies examined the nature of disease. Comparable developments occurred in classical Indian and Chinese civilizations. The natural philosophers of Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe divided into competing schools of thought over the nature of disease. More recent years have witnessed an enormous flourishing of physicians, pathologists, and agriculturalists who study aspects of disease that relate to their individual disciplines. Most of these researchers have, however, examined ever-narrower aspects of specific diseases�such as manifestations, mechanisms and causes�rather than the generic nature of the phenomenon. Some contemporary philosophers, on the other hand, have become interested in general aspects of the topic. They have proposed a number of novel ideas and reached some stimulating conclusions, although they can hardly yet claim to have reached a consensus. This lack of unanimity presumably implies that the issues involved require closer analysis if a formulation is to emerge that most of them can accept. The object of the present thesis is to undertake such an analysis. It will start by outlining in this introduction the general background to the topic. It will then detail the more noteworthy of previously proposed theories about the nature of this phenomenon, classifying them according to their most prominent components, and assessing their several strengths and weaknesses. It will next discuss the specific philosophical issues of definition, causation, and explication in the biomedical context, before suggesting a comprehensive, but succinct, definition that acknowledges many older views about disease, encompasses current usage, and provides a theoretical base from which to work into the future. It will finally test the strengths and weaknesses of that definition to account for observed phenomena and to accommodate some former definitions.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Central Florida, 2008. / Adviser: LeVester Tubbs. Includes bibliographical references (p. 108-113).

Diss.--Bonn. / Bibliography: p. 115-117.

Diss.--Bonn. / Bibliography: p. 115-117.

This thesis offers a critical analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health. Feminist epistemology is used to reveal how health and disease are dualistically constructed. Beyond serving as designations for different physiological statuses, these terms are of metaphorical significance, such that individuals affiliated with 'health' are socio-economically, politically and effectively morally preferred over those associated with 'disease'. Popular and immunological conceptions of 'disease' provide justifications for maintaining the oppression of the latter identity. Given WHO's history of prioritizing disease control over primary health care and the consequent implementation of both objectives within a disease-oriented framework, WHO's definition of health is in danger of supporting the health/disease dualism, which in turn jeopardizes the organization's mandate to treat its members formally and substantively equally, and to provide 'health for all'. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

According to Brooke* "Usability does not exist in any absolute sense; it can only be defined with reference to particular contexts." That is, one cannot speak of usability without specifying what that particular usability is characterized by. Driven by the feedback of a reviewer at an international conference, I explore in which way one can precisely specify the kind of usability they are investigating in a given setting. Finally, I come up with a formalism that defines usability as a quintuple comprising the elements level of usability metrics, product, users, goals and context of use. Providing concrete values for these elements then constitutes the investigated type of usability. The use of this formalism is demonstrated in two case studies. * J. Brooke. SUS: A "quick and dirty" usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, and A. L. McClelland, editors, Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis, 1996.

According to Brooke* "Usability does not exist in any absolute sense; it can only be defined with reference to particular contexts." That is, one cannot speak of usability without specifying what that particular usability is characterized by. Driven by the feedback of a reviewer at an international conference, I explore in which way one can precisely specify the kind of usability they are investigating in a given setting. Finally, I come up with a formalism that defines usability as a quintuple comprising the elements level of usability metrics, product, users, goals and context of use. Providing concrete values for these elements then constitutes the investigated type of usability. The use of this formalism is demonstrated in two case studies. * J. Brooke. SUS: A "quick and dirty" usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, and A. L. McClelland, editors, Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis, 1996.

In the summer of 2008, two hurricanes made landfall along the Texas coast causing billions of dollars in damage. Texas received presidential disaster declarations, which resulted in the state receiving over $350 million in hazard mitigation funds. Over 500 requests for mitigation projects were submitted to the government from communities impacted. Not all requested projects could be funded. As a result, those communities that submitted requests for well-defined mitigation projects were the primary beneficiaries of the federal mitigation funds. To better understand the factors that characterize a “welldefined” mitigation project, this study developed an index to rate the completeness and quality of mitigation project definitions. The study incorporated concepts from research on quality community planning and from project definition rating methods. The rating tool consists of detailed descriptions of the project scope elements along with a scoring method for the completeness and quality of the project’s definition. The rating tool and the detailed descriptions help to develop a “well-defined” mitigation project definition as well as to evaluate it. / text

No description available.