No description available.

<p>The IPCCand the FCCC are both central institutions in the international handling of the climate change issue. How these institutions frame and define the climate change issue is decisive for the action taken in response. The aim of this thesis was to analyze and describe how the climate change problem is framed and defined within the FCCC and the IPCC. Furthermore, the aim was also to examine if there are any differences between the IPCC’s and the FCCC’s framings and definitions of the climate change problem, and if so, what those differences consist of. The analysis was based on a line of documents from the IPCC and the FCCC, which were analyzed through a qualitative textual analysis. </p><p>The results of the analysis indicate that there are both similarities and dissimilarities between the institutions. The definitions of the term climate change differ in the sense that the FCCC only regards human-induced changes in climate, as climate change. The IPCC, on the other hand, includes both natural variability and human-induced changes in its definition of climate change. In the practical usage the definitions are similar, and the results indicate that the IPCC in practice has adopted the FCCC’s definition and only focuses on anthropogenic climate change. The climate change issue is by both of the institutions perceived as a greenhouse gas question, and the consequences are described as very extensive and serious. The FCCC gives advantages to mitigative responses in relation to adaptive, and also the IPCC describes mitigative responses as advantageous. Finally, the study indicates that there is a linking between the scientific and political spheres, which is extended by the fact that the FCCC’s definition of climate change creates a demand for scientific input in the decision-making process. The science and policy relationship builds upon mutual expectations of what the respective spheres can contribute with in terms of useful knowledge and policy-relevant questions.</p>

The IPCCand the FCCC are both central institutions in the international handling of the climate change issue. How these institutions frame and define the climate change issue is decisive for the action taken in response. The aim of this thesis was to analyze and describe how the climate change problem is framed and defined within the FCCC and the IPCC. Furthermore, the aim was also to examine if there are any differences between the IPCC’s and the FCCC’s framings and definitions of the climate change problem, and if so, what those differences consist of. The analysis was based on a line of documents from the IPCC and the FCCC, which were analyzed through a qualitative textual analysis. The results of the analysis indicate that there are both similarities and dissimilarities between the institutions. The definitions of the term climate change differ in the sense that the FCCC only regards human-induced changes in climate, as climate change. The IPCC, on the other hand, includes both natural variability and human-induced changes in its definition of climate change. In the practical usage the definitions are similar, and the results indicate that the IPCC in practice has adopted the FCCC’s definition and only focuses on anthropogenic climate change. The climate change issue is by both of the institutions perceived as a greenhouse gas question, and the consequences are described as very extensive and serious. The FCCC gives advantages to mitigative responses in relation to adaptive, and also the IPCC describes mitigative responses as advantageous. Finally, the study indicates that there is a linking between the scientific and political spheres, which is extended by the fact that the FCCC’s definition of climate change creates a demand for scientific input in the decision-making process. The science and policy relationship builds upon mutual expectations of what the respective spheres can contribute with in terms of useful knowledge and policy-relevant questions.

The HCI community is well aware of the gap between research and practice in the field. The issue is often discussed in terms of the applicability and adaption of theories and methods to the real world, but both categories seem insufficient for explaining how practitioners navigate the complexity of the problems they work on. This study takes a more fundamental perspective, inspired by theories of reflective practice and design. As a consequence, the attention is shifted to the framing of a problem that happens prior—or in parallel—to the use of theories and methods. Six case studies were collected through semi-structured interviews to investigate this position. The findings point towards a rather small set of techniques which are used for supporting the (re-)framing of a problem in an often pragmatic and informal way. A model locating the methods in their respective stages is proposed; and the methods are related to other research to suggest additional possibilities not mentioned by the participants of this study. What most clearly distinguished HCI practitioners from designers in other professions was their distrust in their own intuition, and the key role they attached to the user in response.

<p>Problem framing is an essential stage in engineering design mainly because it is crucial in developing solutions to design problems. Engineers’ ability to frame a problem is naturally attributed to their reasoning abilities and expertise. Traditionally, our understanding of the type of reasoning is originated from cognitive sciences, sociology, and psychological theories of reasoning. Design reasoning models developed from these disciplines contributed significantly to understanding design reasoning. However, a different standpoint for understanding specialized form of knowledge and reasoning that are unique to engineering practices is needed.</p> <p>An important contribution of this dissertation to the body of research is its use of a new theoretical model, Design Reasoning Quadrants, developed to help organize types of design reasoning at the intersection of two axes, the disciplinary-multidisciplinary reasoning axis and theoretical-practical reasoning axis. Further, this dissertation uses the Design Reasoning Quadrants framework to understand first-year engineering students' reasoning while framing design problems. Prior research stated that it is necessary to elicit the forms of reasoning beginner students have while dealing with design problems, to improve problem-solving abilities. Therefore, this dissertation addresses the need to understand first-year engineering students' reasoning, while engaging in problem framing using four design reasoning quadrants: experiential observations, first principles, trade-offs, and complex abstractions.</p> <p>This dissertation examined changes in first-year engineering students’ design reasoning during problem framing across two different design projects students explored within a semester in an engineering course. The main data sources were answers to a questionnaire students completed in the first and final design project as the first-in-lecture activity for problem framing. Students answered each questionnaire individually. The analysis took place in two stages. </p> <p>First, a deductive analysis was conducted to identify types of reasoning in students’ formulated questions to understand a problem. Using a multinomial logit model and descriptive statistics, differences in the theoretical-practical and disciplinary-multidisciplinary reasoning through the time were identified. Second, students’ answers to the design reasoning quadrants’ questions were analyzed deductively and inductively. This analysis aimed to identify students’ design reasoning patterns when elicited in one of the four design reasoning quadrants.</p> <p>The results of the deductive analysis indicated that regardless of the design project, student reasoning in terms of the theoretical-practical reasoning is not significantly different between the two time points. However, students’ reasoning was more heavily disciplinary-focused in the second project and more multidisciplinary in the first design project. The results of the inductive analysis helped further explain this result. This analysis revealed that students were more familiar with the context and disciplinary concepts for the first rather than for the second design project.</p> <p>The results of this dissertation and framework can help researchers further understand how students reason from the perspective of the nature of engineering. In addition, understanding the type of reasoning students use while framing a problem will allow educators to understand the reasoning beginner students employ while framing a problem and to develop better learning experiences to enhance problem-solving skills.</p>

The focus of this case study was on the problem-framing activities of one teacher within two teaching contexts large group and studio. This study was grounded in Schöns research on reflective practice and sought to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the teachers problem-setting behaviours in the studio and large class context? As the teacher resets problems; (a) what frame-experiments are carried out by the teacher in each context? (b) Are these experiments similar or different? (c) How do these frame-experiments change with each iteration? 2. What type of teacher feedback is given to students in each of these contexts? 3. What tacit teacher understandings are at work in each context? 4. What are the similarities and differences in assessment techniques used in a studio and large group context? Interpretation of the data revealed several differences in how one teacher framed problems in the studio and classroom contexts. Findings from the data suggest ways that teaching strategies commonly employed in studio teaching might be applied to classroom music teaching.

The focus of this case study was on the problem-framing activities of one teacher within two teaching contexts large group and studio. This study was grounded in Schöns research on reflective practice and sought to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the teachers problem-setting behaviours in the studio and large class context? As the teacher resets problems; (a) what frame-experiments are carried out by the teacher in each context? (b) Are these experiments similar or different? (c) How do these frame-experiments change with each iteration? 2. What type of teacher feedback is given to students in each of these contexts? 3. What tacit teacher understandings are at work in each context? 4. What are the similarities and differences in assessment techniques used in a studio and large group context? Interpretation of the data revealed several differences in how one teacher framed problems in the studio and classroom contexts. Findings from the data suggest ways that teaching strategies commonly employed in studio teaching might be applied to classroom music teaching.