Статті в журналах з теми "Problème de codesign"

Évaluer les apprentissages, tant pour mieux les soutenir que pour y reconnaitre les acquis (Allal et Laveault, 2009; Ministère de l’Éducation, 2003), est l’une des compétences de l’enseignante et de l’enseignant (Ministère de l’Éducation, 2020). Afin de tirer profit des usages du numérique en matière d’évaluation des apprentissages, le projet de recherche-action ÉCRAN (Évaluation Collaborative Réussie des Apprentissages par le Numérique, FRQSC, 2020-2023) a voulu rendre compte de l’activité des élèves en situation de comprendre ou de résoudre un problème en collaboration. À cette fin, de l’accompagnement a été offert au cours de l’activité de codesign. Le présent article traite des enjeux et défis d’accompagnement de deux sites distincts alors que les enseignantes et les enseignants qui y participent ont dû se préoccuper d’alignement lors de la mise en place de nouvelles séquences enseignement-apprentissage-évaluation, cela dans le contexte pandémique 2020-2021. Six catégories d’enjeux et cinq catégories de défis associées aux usages du numérique aux fins d’évaluation des apprentissages réalisés en collaboration chez des élèves du primaire et du secondaire ont été repérés.

Smart systems are becoming more present in every aspect of our daily lives. The main component of such systems is an embedded system; this latter assures the collection, the treatment, and the transmission of the accurate information in the right time and for the right component. Modern embedded systems are facing several challenges; the objective is to design a system with high performance and to decrease the cost and the development time. Consequently, some robust methodologies like the Codesign were developed to fulfill those requirements. The most important step of the Codesign is the partitioning of the systems' functionalities between a hardware set and a software set. This article deals with this problem and uses a heuristic approach based on shortest path optimizations to solve the problem. The aim is to minimize the total hardware area and to respect a constraint on the overall execution time of the system. Experiments results demonstrate that the proposed method is very fast and gives better results compared to the genetic algorithm.

ObjectivesA very small proportion of children with anxiety problems receive evidence-based treatment. Barriers to access include difficulties with problem identification, concerns about stigma and a lack of clarity about how to access specialist services and their limited availability. A school-based programme that integrates screening to identify those children who are most likely to be experiencing anxiety problems with the offer of intervention has the potential to overcome many of these barriers. This article is a process-based account of how we used codesign to develop a primary school-based screening and intervention programme for child anxiety problems.DesignCodesign.SettingUK primary schools.ParticipantsData were collected from year 4 children (aged 8–9 years), parents, school staff and mental health practitioners.ResultsWe report how the developed programme was experienced and perceived by a range of users, including parents, children, school staff and mental health practitioners, as well as how the programme was adapted following user feedback.ConclusionsWe reflect on the mitigation techniques we employed, the lessons learnt from the codesign process and give recommendations that may inform the development and implementation of future school-based screening and intervention programmes.

Codesign methodology deals with the problem of designing complex embedded systems, where automatic hardware/software partitioning is one key issue. The research efforts in this issue are focused on exploring new automatic partitioning methods which consider only binary or extended partitioning problems. The main contribution of this paper is to propose a hybrid FCMPSO partitioning technique, based on Fuzzy C-Means (FCM) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms suitable for mapping embedded applications for both binary and multicores target architecture. Our FCMPSO optimization technique has been compared using different graphical models with a large number of instances. Performance analysis reveals that FCMPSO outperforms PSO algorithm as well as the Genetic Algorithm (GA), Simulated Annealing (SA), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), and FCM standard metaheuristic based techniques and also hybrid solutions including PSO then GA, GA then SA, GA then ACO, ACO then SA, FCM then GA, FCM then SA, and finally ACO followed by FCM.

IntroductionAnxiety difficulties are among the most common mental health problems in childhood. Despite this, few children access evidence-based interventions, and school may be an ideal setting to improve children’s access to treatment. This article describes the design, methods and expected data collection of the Identifying Child Anxiety Through Schools – Identification to Intervention (iCATS i2i) study, which aims to develop acceptable school-based procedures to identify and support child anxiety difficulties.Methods and analysisiCATS i2i will use a mixed-methods approach to codesign and deliver a set of procedures—or ‘pathway’—to improve access to evidence-based intervention for child anxiety difficulties through primary schools in England. The study will consist of four stages, initially involving in-depth interviews with parents, children, school staff and stakeholders (stage 1) to inform the development of the pathway. The pathway will then be administered in two primary schools, including screening, feedback to parents and the offer of treatment where indicated (stage 2), with participating children, parents and school staff invited to provide feedback on their experience (stages 3 and 4). Data will be analysed using Template Analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe iCATS i2i study was approved by the University of Oxford’s Research Ethics Committee (REF R64620/RE001). It is expected that this codesign study will lead on to a future feasibility study and, if indicated, a randomised controlled trial. The findings will be disseminated in several ways, including via lay summary report, publication in academic journals and presentation at conferences. By providing information on child, parent, school staff and other stakeholder’s experiences, we anticipate that the findings will inform the development of an acceptable evidence-based pathway for identification and intervention for children with anxiety difficulties in primary schools and may also inform broader approaches to screening for and treating youth mental health problems outside of clinics.

Computational imaging combines measurement and computational methods with the aim of forming images even when the measurement conditions are weak, few in number, or highly indirect. The recent surge in quantum-inspired imaging sensors, together with a new wave of algorithms allowing on-chip, scalable and robust data processing, has induced an increase of activity with notable results in the domain of low-light flux imaging and sensing. We provide an overview of the major challenges encountered in low-illumination (e.g., ultrafast) imaging and how these problems have recently been addressed for imaging applications in extreme conditions. These methods provide examples of the future imaging solutions to be developed, for which the best results are expected to arise from an efficient codesign of the sensors and data analysis tools.

Objective In 2015, the Australian Government introduced several mental health reforms, including the requirement that Primary Health Networks (PHNs) provide stepped care services for Australians with mental health needs such as anxiety and depression. This paper reports on the development and feasibility study of StepCare, an online stepped mental healthcare service in general practice that screens patients, provides immediate feedback to patients and general practitioners (GPs), transmits stepped treatment recommendations to GPs and monitors patients’ progress, including notification of deterioration. Methods The present codesign and feasibility study in one PHN examined: (1) the acceptability and feasibility of StepCare to GPs, practice staff and patients; (2) the impact of StepCare on clinical practice; and (3) the barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Results Thirty-two GPs, 22 practice staff and 418 patients participated in the study. Overall, patients, practice staff and GPs found StepCare acceptable and feasible, commending its privacy, the mental health screening, monitoring and feedback. They also made suggestions for service improvements. GPs reported that StepCare helped with their identification and management of patients with common mental health issues. Conclusions Preliminary data suggest that StepCare may be acceptable and feasible in Australian general practice, helping GPs identify and manage common mental health problems in their patients. The study provides implications for policy and practice, and points the way to future translational research into stepped mental health care. What is known about the topic? Depression and anxiety are common illnesses in primary care and GPs are ideally placed to implement stepped care approaches enabling early detection and accessible, effective care. What does this paper add? Developed in and for general practice, StepCare is the first fully integrated stepped approach to primary mental health care in Australia. As a first step in a translational research program evaluating the effectiveness of StepCare, this paper reports data regarding the feasibility and acceptability of the service. What are the implications for practitioners? Integrated into the workflow of general practice, StepCare is an online service that helps GPs detect new cases of depression and anxiety, provide evidence-based stepped care treatments and monitor patients’ progress.

The current paper studies guaranteed cost time-varying formation tracking design and analysis problems of high-order swarm systems subject to intermittent communications. Different from the existing work of the time-varying formation control, the time-varying formation tracking can be achieved while certain performance can be guaranteed, and the impacts of the intermittent communications and switching topologies are considered. First, a new intermittent time-varying formation tracking control protocol with a global performance index is proposed, where not only the formation regulation performances but also the control energy expenditures are involved. The codesign of the gain matrix with the performance index is achieved to compromise the formation regulation performances against control energy expenditures, and the guaranteed cost is determined to restrain the upper bound of the performance index. Then, guaranteed cost time-varying formation tracking design and analysis criteria are given, where the matrix variable of the linear matrix inequality conditions is used to design the gain matrix and to determine the guaranteed cost. Finally, a simulation example is provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the theoretical results.

This paper presents a scalable architecture suitable for the implementation of high-speed fuzzy inference systems on reconfigurable hardware. The main features of the proposed architecture, based on the Takagi–Sugeno inference model, are scalability, high performance, and flexibility. A scalable fuzzy inference system (FIS) must be efficient and practical when applied to complex situations, such as multidimensional problems with a large number of membership functions and a large rule base. Several current application areas of fuzzy computation require such enhanced capabilities to deal with real-time problems (e.g., robotics, automotive control, etc.). Scalability and high performance of the proposed solution have been achieved by exploiting the inherent parallelism of the inference model, while flexibility has been obtained by applying hardware/software codesign techniques to reconfigurable hardware. Last generation reconfigurable technologies, particularly field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), make it possible to implement the whole embedded FIS (e.g., processor core, memory blocks, peripherals, and specific hardware for fuzzy inference) on a single chip with the consequent savings in size, cost, and power consumption. As a prototyping example, we implemented a complex fuzzy controller for a vehicle semi-active suspension system composed of four three-input FIS on a single FPGA of the Xilinx's Virtex 5 device family.

Design as a discipline has changed a lot during the last 50 years. The boundaries have been expanded partially to address the complexity of the problems we are facing nowadays. Areas like sustainable design, inclusive design, codesign, and social design among many more have emerged in response to the failures of the production and consumption system in place. In this context, social, environmental, and cultural trends have affected the way artefacts are designed, but the design process itself remains almost unchanged. In some sense, more criteria beyond economic concerns are now taken into consideration when social and environmental objectives are pursued in the design process, but the process to reach those objectives responds to the same stages and logic as in traditional approaches motivated only by economic aims. We propose in this paper an alternative way to understand and represent the design process, especially oriented to develop innovations that are aligned with the social, environmental, and cultural demands the world is facing now and it will face in the future. A new extended design process that is responsible for the consequences produced by the artefacts designed beyond the delivery of the solutions is proposed.

BackgroundCare transitions following stroke should be bridged with collaboration between hospital staff and home rehabilitation teams since well-coordinated transitions can reduce death and disability following a stroke. However, health services are delivered within organisational structures, rather than being based on patients’ needs. The aim of this study protocol is to assess the feasibility, operationalised here as fidelity and acceptability, of a codesigned care transition support for people with stroke.MethodsThis study protocol describes the evaluation of a feasibility study using a non-randomised controlled design. The codesigned care transition support includes patient information using videos, leaflets and teach back; what-matters-to me dialogue; a coordinated rehabilitation plan; bridged e-meeting; and a message system for cross-organisational collaboration. Patients with stroke, first time or recurrent, who are to be discharged home from hospital and referred to a rehabilitation team in primary healthcare for continued rehabilitation in the home will be included. One week after stroke, data will be collected on the primary outcome, namely satisfaction with the care transition support, and on the secondary outcome, namely health literacy and medication adherence. Data on use of healthcare will be obtained from a register of healthcare contacts. The outcomes of patients and significant others will be compared with matched controls from other geriatric stroke and acute stroke units, and with matched historic controls from a previous dataset at the intervention and control units. Data on acceptability and fidelity will be assessed through interviews and observations at the intervention units.Ethics and disseminationEthical approvals have been obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The results will be published open-access in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination also includes presentation at national and international conferences.DiscussionThe care transition support addresses a poorly functioning part of care trajectories in current healthcare. The development of this codesigned care transition support has involved people with stroke, significant other, and healthcare professionals. Such involvement has the potential to better identify and reconceptualise problems, and incorporate user experiences.Trial registration numberhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov id: NCT02925871. Date of registration 6 October 2016.Protocol version1.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to define design thinking, provide insights into how it may be integrated into the healthcare design process, and provide a checklist for future implementation. Background: Design thinking is a collaborative method of inquiry that fosters innovative, team-generated solutions to complex scenarios, known as “wicked problems,” that are extraordinarily difficult to solve. It is a practical tool in the toolbox of the codesign team, which includes the client and design professionals as primary stakeholders. It is powered by team-based creativity that adaptively responds to a need for new approaches and products in an innovative and practically applicable way. The need for design thinking in healthcare is steadily increasing as the healthcare system and its care environments continue to grow in complexity. Although major medical breakthroughs have undeniably expanded the average human life span, the current healthcare system is inefficient. Now, more than ever, design thinking and the innovative, human-centered solutions it enables are needed within healthcare design. Although the use of design thinking as a method within the field of architecture is not new, many design teams struggle integrating it fully within the design process, particularly in healthcare. The knowledge, design method, checklists, and direction provided in this article can benefit healthcare design teams to successfully integrate the method into practice. Conclusion: If design thinking is integrated into the healthcare architectural design process with the creative problem-solving method, opportunities will arise for innovative solutions and deeper insights into problems to benefit healthcare delivery.

This work reports on an efficient design methodology for realizing hybrid filter-antenna subsystems. Designing a filter-antenna subsystem in the case of complex multimode filter is not straightforward. The coupling of the antenna with a multimode filter depends upon several uncorrelated parameters. An efficient design methodology is proposed which can address these complex problems. The work focuses on the characterization of radiating and filtering elements and then proposes a reliable model, which is derived mathematically as well as from rigorous statistical analyses, which can then be used for designing hybrid filter-antenna structures such as a hybrid DRA codesigned with a SIW based multimode filter. A highly compact filter-antenna subsystem has been designed employing the proposed methodology, and the measured results validate the proposed design technique.

ObjectiveTo elicit perspectives of family physicians and patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) on KOA, its treatment/management and the use of a mobile health application (app) to help patients self-manage their KOA.DesignA qualitative study using Cognitive Task Analysis for physician interviews and peer-to-peer semistructured interviews for patients according to the Patient and Community Engagement Research (PaCER) method.SettingPrimary care practices and patient researchers at an academic centre in Southern Alberta.ParticipantsIntentional sampling of family physicians (n=4; 75% women) and patients with KOA who had taken part in previous PaCER studies and had experienced knee pain on most days of the month at any time in the past (n=5; 60% women).ResultsPhysician and patient views about KOA were starkly contrasting. Patient participants expressed that KOA seriously impacted their lives and lifestyles, and they wanted their knee pain to be considered as important as other health problems. In contrast, physicians uniformly conceptualised KOA as a relatively minor health problem, although they still recognised it as a painful condition that often limits patients’ activities. Consequently, physicians did not regard KOA as a condition to be proactively and aggressively managed. The gap between physicians’ and patients’ conceptualisation of KOA and its treatment extended to the use of an app for self-management. While patients were supportive of the app, physicians were sceptical of its use and focused more on accountability and patient resources.ConclusionsThe clear discord between physicians’ mental models and patients’ lived experience and perceived needs around KOA emphasised a gap in understanding and communication about treatment and management of KOA. As such, this preliminary and formative research will inform a codesign approach to develop an app that will act as a communications tool between patients and physicians, enabling patient–physician discussions regarding modifiable self-management options based on a patient’s perspectives and needs.

IntroductionVery few collaborative nursing care interventions have been studied and shown to be effective in the context of the paradigm shift towards recovery in mental health nursing. Understanding the changes produced in the recovery process of people with mental health problems can contribute to the design and implementation of new methodologies to offer effective and person-centred care.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed-methods study, which is structured in three phases. In phase one (baseline) and phase three (follow-up), quantitative data will be collected from patients at a mental health day hospitals based on a two-armed, parallel-design, non-randomised trial. In phase two, two groups will be established: an intervention group in which the intervention based on collaborative nursing care will be carried out through the codesign and implementation of activities through Participatory Action Research, and a control group in which the usual care dynamics will be continued. All the users of three mental health day hospitals who agree to participate in the study will be studied consecutively until the necessary sample size is reached. The outcomes used to evaluate the impact of the intervention will be the stage of the recovery process, the quality of the therapeutic relationship and the patient’s level of positive mental health.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the institutional review board of the reference hospital, FIDMAG Hermanas Hospitalarias (PR-2020-10) in July 2020. All participants will be able to voluntarily withdraw from the study at any time. For this reason, users will be given a sheet with all the precise information about the study to be carried out and written consent will be requested. Preliminary and final results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international congresses.Trial registration numberNCT04814576.

ObjectivesAlthough the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia.DesignA small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign.Setting90 min online workshop.ParticipantsEight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study’s journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers.InterventionThe training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics.MeasuresAcceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists’ knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.ResultsAll participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion.ConclusionsPiloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention’s impact on media coverage of medicine.

ObjectivesTo design and pilot a survey to be used at the population level to estimate the frequency of patient-perceived potentially harmful preventable problems occurring in UK primary care. To explore the nature of the problems, patient-suggested strategies for prevention and opinions of clinicians and the public regarding the potential for harm.DesignA survey was codesigned by three members of the public and one researcher and piloted through public and patient involvement and engagement networks.SettingSelf-selected sample of the UK population.Participants977 members of the public accessed the online survey during October and November 2015.Primary outcome measuresRespondent feedback about the ease of completion of the survey, quality of responses in terms of review by clinicians and members of the public, preliminary estimates of the frequency and nature of patient-perceived potentially harmful problems occurring in the last 12 months.Results638 (65%) members of the public completed the survey and few respondents reported any difficulty in understanding or completing the survey. 132 (21%) respondents reported experiencing a potentially harmful preventable problem during the past 12 months and 108 (82%) of these respondents provided a description that was adequate for at least one clinician to form an opinion about the potentially harmful problem. Respondents were older than the UK generally, more likely to work or volunteer in the healthcare sector and tended to use primary care more frequently but their confidence and trust in their own general practitioner (GP) was similar to that of the UK population as measured by the annual English GP patient survey.ConclusionsThe survey was acceptable to patients and mostly provided data of sufficient quality for review by clinicians and members of the public. It is now ready to use at a population level to estimate the frequency and nature of potentially harmful preventable problems in primary care from a patient’s perspective.

The focus of this paper is the design and development of an innovative project-based work-integrated learning (WIL) course that enables undergraduate students from all faculties to work in interdisciplinary teams with partner organisations from the public, private, and community sectors. Projects are codesigned with partners interested in students from multiple disciplines bringing insights to problems that might not otherwise be resourced by their organisation. These ‘projects of consequence’ are unstructured, ambiguous and complex, requiring student teams to synthesise their different disciplinary knowledge. Student learning is supported by course curriculum design that includes proven pedagogical practices such as: ongoing feedback from partners; students working in autonomous small teams; academic supervision of teamwork; learning support before and during project work; debriefing; providing a safe, supportive space to experiment with new ideas, embracing the prospect of failure and to develop resilience; all underpinned by reflection so as to process, understand and integrate students’ experiences. The versatility of the course design was demonstrated by the rapid change from face-to-face delivery to an entirely online learning environment in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges and adaptations include changes to the way student teams worked, the additional support needed by students, and adjustment in the mode of interactions with partners.

IntroductionPeople who experience transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke have limited follow-up despite rapid specialist review in hospital. This means they often have unmet needs and feel abandoned following discharge. Care needs after TIA/minor stroke include information provision (diagnosis and stroke risk), stroke prevention (medication and lifestyle change) and holistic care (residual problems and return to work or usual activities). This protocol describes a feasibility study and process evaluation of an intervention to support people after TIA/minor stroke. The study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of (1) the intervention and (2) the trial procedures for a future randomised controlled trial of this intervention.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, randomised (1:1) feasibility study with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Sixty participants will be recruited from TIA clinics or stroke wards at three hospital sites (England). Intervention arm participants will be offered a nurse or allied health professional-led follow-up appointment 4 weeks after TIA/minor stroke. The multifaceted intervention includes: a needs checklist, action plan, resources to support management of needs, a general practitioner letter and training to deliver the intervention. Control arm participants will receive usual care. Follow-up will be self-completed questionnaires (12 weeks and 24 weeks) and a clinic appointment (24 weeks). Follow-up questionnaires will measure anxiety, depression, fatigue, health related quality of life, self-efficacy and medication adherence. The clinic appointment will collect body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol and medication. Assessment of feasibility and acceptability will include quantitative process variables (such as recruitment and questionnaire response rates), structured observations of study processes, and interviews with a subsample of participants and clinical staff.Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion was gained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee (REC) 1 (23 February 2021, REC reference: 21/WA/0036). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. A lay summary and dissemination strategy will be codesigned with consumers. The lay summary and journal publication will be distributed on social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN39864003.

Background Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death or for survivors of cardiac arrest. All ICDs combine a shock function with a pacing function to treat fast and slow heart rhythms, respectively. The pacing function may be very sophisticated and can provide so-called cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure using a pacemaker (cardiac resynchronisation therapy with pacemaker) or combined with an ICD [cardiac resynchronisation therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D)]. Decision-making about these devices involves considering the benefit (averting sudden cardiac death), possible risks (inappropriate shocks and psychological problems) and the potential need for deactivation towards the end of life. Objectives To explore patients’/relatives’ and clinicians’ views/experiences of decision-making about ICD and CRT-D implantation and deactivation, to establish how and when ICD risks, benefits and consequences are communicated to patients, to identify individual and organisational facilitators and barriers to discussions about implantation and deactivation and to determine information and decision-support needs for shared decision-making (SDM). Data sources Observations of clinical encounters, in-depth interviews and interactive group workshops with clinicians, patients and their relatives. Methods Observations of consultations with patients being considered for ICD or CRT-D implantation were undertaken to become familiar with the clinical environment and to optimise the sampling strategy. In-depth interviews were conducted with patients, relatives and clinicians to gain detailed insights into their views and experiences. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Interactive workshops with clinicians and patients/relatives were used to validate our findings and to explore how these could be used to support better SDM. Results We conducted 38 observations of clinical encounters, 80 interviews (44 patients/relatives, seven bereaved relatives and 29 clinicians) and two workshops with 11 clinicians and 11 patients/relatives. Patients had variable knowledge about their conditions, the risk of sudden cardiac death and the clinical rationale for ICDs, which sometimes resulted in confusion about the potential benefits. Clinicians used various metaphors, verbal descriptors and numerical risk methods, including variable disclosure of the potential negative impact of ICDs on body image and the risk of psychological problems, to convey information to patients/relatives. Patients/relatives wanted more information about, and more involvement in, deactivation decisions, and expressed a preference that these decisions be addressed at the time of implantation. There was no consensus among clinicians about the initiation or timing of such discussions, or who should take responsibility for them. Introducing deactivation discussions prior to implantation was thus contentious; however, trigger points for deactivation discussions embedded within the pathway were suggested to ensure timely discussions. Limitations Only two patients who were prospectively considering deactivation and seven bereaved relatives were recruited. The study also lacks the perspectives of primary care clinicians. Conclusions There is discordance between patients and clinicians on information requirements, in particular the potential consequences of implantation on psychological well-being and quality of life in the short and long term (deactivation). There were no agreed points across the care pathway at which to discuss deactivation. Codesigned information tools that present balanced information on the benefits, risks and consequences, and SDM skills training for patients/relative and clinicians, would support better SDM about ICDs. Future work Multifaceted SDM interventions that focus on skills development for SDM combined with decision-support tools are warranted, and there is a potential central role for heart failure nurses and physiologists in supporting and preparing patients/relatives for such discussions. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Abstract Introduction Improvement of mental health is a priority in the NHS Long Term Plan (1), and pharmacists and their teams could provide enhanced support for people who take medicines for anxiety or depression, two of the most common mental health problems in the UK. However, a recent Cochrane review (2) identified no community pharmacy services focused on mental health. Aim We aimed to pilot a mental health support service, in community pharmacy: Advancing Mental Health Provision in Pharmacy (AMPLIPHY) to assess its feasibility and potential benefit Methods The AMPLIPHY service was codesigned through a workshop involving people with lived experience, pharmacists and researchers. The resultant programme is a series of consultations, beginning at the presentation of the qualifying prescription for an antidepressant, after a further 1–2 weeks and then as further prescriptions are presented, up to 3 months. People are eligible to enter the service if they are newly prescribed antidepressants for depression or anxiety, or have a change in medication, dose or quantity. Pharmacists and their teams identified people who met this criterion and invited them to participate. The service was intended to be patient-led, with the pharmacist helping the patient to define tangible aims and/or outcomes that they wanted to focus on, and providing sign-posting where required. Following brief one-day training, the pilot ran across ten pharmacies in Greater Manchester from November 2019 through March 2020. We triangulated results from: a) quantitative analysis of consultation data; b) content analysis of consultation records; and c) template analysis of semi-structured interviews with participating pharmacists at the start and end of the service. We aimed to obtain feedback from people on exit from the AMPLIPHY service, but this was curtailed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Consultations were recorded via the Pharmoutcomes system (a,b) and interviews were recorded and transcribed, with NVivo used to manage the interview dataset (c). Results Seventy-six patients participated in the service, across 9 of the 10 pharmacies. Seventy-five percent of patients had just one consultation. The median age was 39 (IQR 28–47) and 62% of patients were women. Most patients entered the service due to new prescription of antidepressant (74%), 17% due to a change in dose and the remainder due to change in medication or quantity. Sertraline was the most commonly prescribed medication (46%). The content analysis is indicating that consultations centred around one of five areas: health (n=31), lifestyle (n=62), medication (n=45), support (n=37) and patient’s descriptions of their feelings (n=31). Conclusion AMPLIPHY was accessed by a range of people, mainly on initiation of a new antidepressant. Parallels might be drawn with the New Medicines Service in England, but this does not currently extend to antidepressants. Consultations were not restricted to health and medication, but extended to other social and lifestyle aspects thus indicated that participants felt comfortable to disclose their personal situations to the pharmacist. This could support tailored interactions. However, more work is warranted to understand why most patients did not attend multiple consultations, and the immediate/ long-term impact from the patient’s perspective. References 1. NHS. NHS Long Term Plan [online]. 2019 [cited 09 October 2020]. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-term-plan/ 2. de Barra M, Scott CL, Scott NW, Johnston M, de Bruin M, Nkansah N, Bond CM, Matheson CI, Rackow P, Williams AJ, Watson MC. Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD013102. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013102.

Abstract Objectives In this study, we aimed to describe and evaluate the codesign of an intervention in general practice setting to help address navigation problems faced by the patients from the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) community in Australia. Methods An experience-based codesign (EBCD) methodology was adopted using the Double Diamond design process. Two codesign workshops were conducted online with 13 participants including patients, their caregivers, health service providers, researchers, and other stakeholders. Workshops were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Results The codesign participants identified several navigation problems among CALD patients such as inadequate health literacy, cultural and language barriers, and difficulties with navigating health and social services. They believed that bilingual community navigators (BCNs; lay health workers from the same language or cultural background) could help them address these problems. However, this depended on BCNs being trained and supervised, with a clear role definition and manageable workloads, and not used as an interpreter. In undertaking the codesign process, we found that pre-workshop consultations were useful to ensure engagement, especially for consumers who participated more actively in group activities with service providers after these and their own separate small group discussions during the workshop. Conclusion Overall, participants identified that BCNs could offer help in addressing the problems faced by the CALD patients in accessing care in general practice setting. The codesign process provided new insights into the navigation problems faced by CALD patients in accessing care and collaboratively developed a strategy for further testing and evaluation.

Codesign refers to the process of integrating the optimization of the physical plant design and control of a system. In this paper, a new class of codesign problems with a multisubsystem architecture in both design and control is formulated and solved. Our work here extends earlier research on models and solution approaches from single system to multisubsystem codesign. In this class, the optimization model for the physical design part in each subsystem is assumed to have a convex objective function with convex inequality and linear equality constraints. The optimization model for the control part of each subsystem belongs to a class of finite time-horizon linear quadratic regulator (LQR) feedback control. A new multilevel decentralized method is proposed that can obtain optimal or near-optimal solutions for this class of codesign problems. Details of the model and approach are presented and demonstrated by a numerical as well as a more complex spring–mass–damper system example. The proposed decentralized approach has been compared with a centralized approach. Using a scalable test problem, it is shown that as the size of the problem is increased, the computation effort for the decentralized approach increases linearly while that of the centralized approach increases nonlinearly.

Information leakage can lead to loss of intellectual property and competitive edge. One of the primary sources of information leakage in collaborative design is sharing confidential information with collaborators, who may be also collaborating with competitors. Hiding information from collaborators is challenging in codesign because it can lead to inferior and suboptimal solutions. Therefore, there is a need for techniques that enable designers to protect confidential information from their collaborators while achieving solutions that are as good as those obtained when full information is shared. To address this need, we propose a secure codesign (SCD) framework that enables designers to achieve optimal solutions without sharing confidential information. It is built on two principles: adding/multiplying a parameter with a large random number hides the value of the parameter, and adding/multiplying a large number is orders of magnitude faster than using existing cryptographic techniques. Building on the protocols for basic arithmetic computations, developed in our earlier work, we establish protocols for higher order computations involved in design problems. The framework is demonstrated using three codesign scenarios: requirements-driven codesign, objective-driven codesign, and Nash noncooperation. We show that the proposed SCD framework enables designers to achieve optimal solutions in all three scenarios. The proposed framework is orders of magnitude faster than competing (but impractical for engineering design) cryptographic methods such as homomorphic encryption, without compromising on precision in computations. Hence, the proposed SCD framework is a practical approach for maintaining confidentiality of information during codesign.

This paper presents a nested codesign (combined plant and controller design) formulation that uses optimal design of experiments (DoE) techniques at the upper level to globally explore the plant design space, with continuous-time control parameter adaptation laws used at the lower level. The global design space exploration made possible through optimal DoE techniques makes the proposed methodology appealing for complex, nonconvex optimization problems for which legacy approaches are not effective. Furthermore, the use of continuous-time adaptation laws for control parameter optimization allows for the extension of the proposed optimization framework to the experimental realm, where control parameters can be optimized during experiments. At each full iteration, optimal DoE are used to generate a batch of plant designs within a prescribed design space. Each plant design is tested in either a simulation or experiment, during which an adaptation law is used for control parameter optimization. Two techniques are proposed for control parameter optimization at each iteration: extremum seeking (ES) and continuous-time DoE. The design space is reduced at the end of each full iteration, based on a response surface characterization and quality of fit estimate. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated for an airborne wind energy (AWE) system, where the plant parameters are the center of mass location and stabilizer area, and the control parameter is the trim pitch angle.

AbstractNatural hazard preparation by communities reduces disaster-induced physical health problems and adverse experiences, lowers potential for post-traumatic stress disorders, and aids faster recovery. However, approaches to community engagement for preparedness vary widely leaving those responsible confused and often overwhelmed. This study builds on natural hazards behavior, community development, participatory, and codesign research to understand current community engagement approaches in an Australian context. Key principles for engaging communities were operationalized from document analysis and interviews with 30 community engagement practitioners from 25 Australian emergency management agencies. A thematic analysis of the agency documents and interviews led to a visualization of the pathway to community-led preparedness with the iterative community-centered engagement model for preparedness. The model reflects both current practice and aspirations. It contributes theoretically to a collaborative community-led engagement approach for risk personalization and protective action by highlighting the need to develop a deep understanding of the specific features of local communities. The model maps a pathway through different levels of community engagement toward the ultimate aim of a community-led approach to natural hazards preparation. It recognizes the changing circumstances and the situation of communities within their environment, and the barriers and enablers to support community-led preparedness. The model is significant in that it delivers a practical framework for engagement practitioners to build capacity in their communities and support their local communities to prepare for natural hazards and build relational capital for longer-term resilience.

Optimization of dynamic systems often requires system simulation. Several important classes of dynamic system models have computationally expensive time derivative functions, resulting in simulations that are significantly slower than real time. This makes design optimization based on these models impractical. An efficient two-loop method, based on surrogate modeling, is presented here for solving dynamic system design problems with computationally expensive derivative functions. A surrogate model is constructed for only the derivative function instead of the simulation response. Simulation is performed based on the computationally inexpensive surrogate derivative function; this strategy preserves the nature of the dynamic system, and improves computational efficiency and accuracy compared to conventional surrogate modeling. The inner-loop optimization problem is solved for a given derivative function surrogate model (DFSM), and the outer loop updates the surrogate model based on optimization results. One unique challenge of this strategy is to ensure surrogate model accuracy in two regions: near the optimal point in the design space, and near the state trajectory in the state space corresponding to the optimal design. The initial evidence of method effectiveness is demonstrated first using two simple design examples, followed by a more detailed wind turbine codesign problem that accounts for aeroelastic effects and simultaneously optimizes physical and control system design. In the last example, a linear state-dependent model is used that requires computationally expensive matrix updates when either state or design variables change. Results indicate an order-of-magnitude reduction in function evaluations when compared to conventional surrogate modeling. The DFSM method is expected to be beneficial only for problems where derivative function evaluation expense, and not large problem dimension, is the primary contributor to solution expense (a restricted but important problem class). The initial studies presented here revealed opportunities for potential further method improvement and deeper investigation.

Researchers in numerous fields assert that research partnerships involving academics and nonacademics are essential for developing solutions to pressing and complex problems. While theoretically justified and urgently needed, working across institutional and epistemological boundaries to produce knowledge and create solutions turns out to be complex and challenging. Given the potential and often realized challenges of collaborations, and the need for partners to come together to develop workable solutions, additional research is needed on process in research collaborations. With this paper, we contribute to the literature on process and outcomes in the development of community-university research teams. Specifically, we study local government officials’ (LGOs) process and outcome preferences for engaging in community-university research partnerships and their perceptions of academic researchers. Our data were generated from open-ended responses to a statewide survey of LGOs in Maine, United States, during the scoping phase of a large-scale sustainability-focused research initiative. Our findings revealed that respondents’ process preferences were influenced by such considerations as partners’ willingness to codesign the partnership and the attendant research, and by having a shared understanding of partner needs and responsibilities. Stakeholders’ outcome preferences were influenced by their perceptions of the type and relevance of the outcomes to all involved parties. We conclude with a discussion of how to use this data to initiate research partnerships and facilitate inclusive partnership processes. Being mindful of partners’ process and outcomes preferences in research collaborations and being aware of the perceptions that partners bring to the table are important for achieving solutions that are inclusive, thoughtful, and ethical.

Autonomous, agile quadrotor flight raises fundamental challenges for robotics research in terms of perception, planning, learning, and control. A versatile and standardized platform is needed to accelerate research and let practitioners focus on the core problems. To this end, we present Agilicious, a codesigned hardware and software framework tailored to autonomous, agile quadrotor flight. It is completely open source and open hardware and supports both model-based and neural network–based controllers. Also, it provides high thrust-to-weight and torque-to-inertia ratios for agility, onboard vision sensors, graphics processing unit (GPU)–accelerated compute hardware for real-time perception and neural network inference, a real-time flight controller, and a versatile software stack. In contrast to existing frameworks, Agilicious offers a unique combination of flexible software stack and high-performance hardware. We compare Agilicious with prior works and demonstrate it on different agile tasks, using both model-based and neural network–based controllers. Our demonstrators include trajectory tracking at up to 5 g and 70 kilometers per hour in a motion capture system, and vision-based acrobatic flight and obstacle avoidance in both structured and unstructured environments using solely onboard perception. Last, we demonstrate its use for hardware-in-the-loop simulation in virtual reality environments. Because of its versatility, we believe that Agilicious supports the next generation of scientific and industrial quadrotor research.

AbstractDecompilation aims to analyze and transform low-level program language (PL) codes such as binary code or assembly code to obtain an equivalent high-level PL. Decompilation plays a vital role in the cyberspace security fields such as software vulnerability discovery and analysis, malicious code detection and analysis, and software engineering fields such as source code analysis, optimization, and cross-language cross-operating system migration. Unfortunately, the existing decompilers mainly rely on experts to write rules, which leads to bottlenecks such as low scalability, development difficulties, and long cycles. The generated high-level PL codes often violate the code writing specifications. Further, their readability is still relatively low. The problems mentioned above hinder the efficiency of advanced applications (e.g., vulnerability discovery) based on decompiled high-level PL codes.In this paper, we propose a decompilation approach based on the attention-based neural machine translation (NMT) mechanism, which converts low-level PL into high-level PL while acquiring legibility and keeping functionally similar. To compensate for the information asymmetry between the low-level and high-level PL, a translation method based on basic operations of low-level PL is designed. This method improves the generalization of the NMT model and captures the translation rules between PLs more accurately and efficiently. Besides, we implement a neural decompilation framework called Neutron. The evaluation of two practical applications shows that Neutron’s average program accuracy is 96.96%, which is better than the traditional NMT model.

Re-Framing Participation in the Architecture Studio Recently, within design literature, significant attention has been given to collaboration across different disciplines (see for instance, Nicolini et al.; Carlile), as well as consideration of the breakdown of traditional disciplinarity and the corresponding involvement of users in co-generation (Sanders and Stappers, “Co-Creation” 11–12) through the development and deployment of structured methods and toolkits (Sanders et al., “Framework”; Sanders and Stappers, “Probes”). Relatively less attention has been paid to the workings of the “communities of practice” (Wenger) operating within the disciplinary domain of architecture. The discourse around concept design in architecture has tended to emphasise individualist approaches driven by personal philosophies, inspirations, imitation of a more experienced designer, and emphasis on latent talent or genius (for instance, Moneo). This can be problematic because without a shared language and methods there are limited opportunities for making meaning to facilitate participation between collaborators in architectural studio settings. It is worth asking then: are there things that “Architecture” might learn from “Design” about the deployment of structured methods, and might this interdisciplinary exchange promote participatory practices in studio-based cultures? We address this question by connecting and building on two important concepts relevant to design methods, meta-design as described in the open design literature (De Mul 36–37), and design frames as described by Schön and formalised by Dorst (‘Core’; Frame; see also Weedon). Through this combination, we propose a theory of participation by making shared meaning in architectural design. We animate our theoretical contribution through a design toolkit we have developed, refined, and applied over several years in typologically focused architectural design studios in Australian university contexts. One important contribution, we argue, is to the area of design theory-building, by taking two previously unrelated concepts from the design methods literature. We draw them together using an example from our own design practices to articulate a new term and concept for making shared meaning in design. The other contribution made is to the translation of this concept into the context of studio-based architectural practice, a setting that has traditionally struggled to accept structured methods. The existence of other form-metaphor design tools available for architecture and the theoretical basis of their development and connection to design literature more broadly has not always been clearly articulated (see for example Di Mari and Yoo; Lewis et al.). The rationale for giving an account of the construction and deployment of our own toolkit is to illustrate its theoretical contribution while providing the basis for future field testing and translation (including by other researchers), noting the established trajectory of this kind of work in the design literature (see, for example, Hoolohan and Browne; Visser et al.; Vaajakallio and Mattelmäki; Sanders and Stappers, “Co-Creation” and ”Probes”). In line with this issue’s thematic and epistemological agenda, we adopt what Cross identifies as “designerly ways of knowing” (223), and is at least partly a reflection on a practice in which we engage with our own disciplines and research interests to propose and deploy design thinking as a kind of critical “reflection-in-action” (Robertson and Simonsen 2). Meta-Framing: Combining Meta-Design and Framing Meta-design is a term used in open design literature to describe approaches aimed toward orchestration of a project in such a way that people are afforded the agency to become effective co-designers, regardless of their pre-existing skills or design-specific knowledge (De Mul 36). According to a meta-design approach, design is conceived of as a shared project of mutual learning instead of an individualistic expression of singular genius. Through the establishment of shared protocols and formats, what Ehn (1) calls “infrastructuring”, individuals with even very limited design experience are provided scaffolds that enable them to participate in a design project. One important way in which meta-design helps “create a pathway through a design space” is through the careful selection and adoption of shared guiding metaphors that provide common meanings between co-designers (De Mul 36). The usefulness of metaphors is also recognised in the context of design frames, the second concept on which we build our theory. Conceptualised as “cognitive shortcuts” for making “sense of complex situations” (Haase and Laursen 21), design frames were first conceived of by Schön (132) as a rational approach to design, one guided by “epistemological norms”. Frames have subsequently been further developed within the design methods literature and are defined as a system of counterfactual design decision-making that uses metaphors to provide a rationale for negotiating ill-structured problems. According to Dorst, frames involve: the creation of a (novel) standpoint from which a problematic situation can be tackled … . Although frames are often paraphrased by a simple metaphor, they are in fact very complex sets of statements that include the specific perception of a problem situation, the (implicit) adoption of certain concepts to describe the situation, a ‘working principle’ that underpins a solution and the key thesis: IF we look at the problem situation from this viewpoint, and adopt the working principle associated with that position, THEN we will create the value we are striving for. (525) Despite Schön choosing to illustrate his original conception of framing through the example of a student’s architectural design project, there has been limited subsequent consideration of framing in architectural studio contexts—an exception being Eissa in 2019. This may be because formalised design methods have tended to be treated with suspicion within architectural culture. For instance, Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language is one such “highly systemised design process” (Dawes and Ostwald 10) that despite its potential to guide participatory design has had an “uneven reception” (Bhatt 716) within architecture itself. One way architecture as a disciplinary domain and as a profession has attempted to engage with design method is through typology, which is one of the few persistent and recurring notions in architectural discourse (Bandini; Grover et al.). As a system of classification, typology categorises “forms and functions as simply and unequivocally as possible” (Oechslin 37). In addition to being used as a classification system, typology has also been positioned as “a process as much as an object”, one with the potential for an “active role in the process of design” (Lathouri 25). Type and typology have been conceptualised as a particular way of projecting architecture’s “disciplinary agency” (Jacoby 936), and this goes some way to explaining their enduring value. A potentially valid criticism of framing is that it can tend toward “design fixation”, when a pre-existing assumption “inadvertently restricts the designers’ imagination” (Crilly). Similarly, typology-as-method—as opposed to a classification tool—has been criticised for being relatively “inflexible” or “reductive” (Shane 2011) and responsible for perpetuating “conservative, static norms” (Jacoby 932) if applied in a rote and non-reflexive way. We deal with these concerns in the discussion of the deployment of our Typekit below. We are drawing here on our experience teaching in the first two years of undergraduate architecture degrees in Australian university settings. As well as being equipped with a diversity of educational, social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds, students typically have divergent competencies in the domain-specific skills of their discipline and a limited vocabulary for making shared meaning in relation to an architectural proposal. The challenge for studio-based collaborative work in such a context is developing shared understandings and a common language for working on a design project to enable a variety of different design solutions. The brief for a typical studio project will specify a common site, context, and program. Examples we have used include a bathhouse, fire station, archive, civic centre, and lifesaving club. There will then be multiple design solutions proposed by each studio participant. Significantly we are talking about relatively well-structured problems here, typically a specific building program for a specified site and user group. These are quite unlike the open-ended aims of “problem frames” described in the design thinking literature “to handle ill-defined, open-ended, and ambiguous problems that other problem-solving methodologies fail to handle” (Haase and Laursen 21). However, even for well-structured problems, there is still a multitude of possible solutions possible, generated by students working on a particular project brief. This openness reduces the possibility of making shared meaning and thus hinders participation in architectural design. Designing the Typekit The Typekit was developed heuristically out of our experiences teaching together over several years. As part of our own reflective practice, we realised that we had begun to develop a shared language for describing projects including that of students, our own, precedents and canonical works. Often these took the form of a simple formal or functional metaphor such as “the building is a wall”; “the building is an upturned coracle”; or “the building is a cloud”. While these cognitive shortcuts proved useful for our communication there remained the possibility for this language to become esoteric and exclusionary. On the other hand, we recognised the potential for this approach to be shared beyond our immediate “interpretive community” (Fish 485) of two, and we therefore began to develop a meta-design toolkit. Fig. 1: Hybrid page from the Typekit We began by developing a visual catalogue of formal and functional metaphors already present within the panoply of constructed contemporary architectural projects assembled by surveying the popular design media for relevant source material. Fig. 2: Classification of contemporary architectural built work using Typekit metaphors We then used simple line drawings to generate abstract representations of the observed building metaphors adopting isometry to maintain a level of objectivity and a neutral viewing position (Scolari). The drawings themselves were both revelatory and didactic and by applying what Cross calls “designerly ways of knowing” (Cross 223) the toolkit emerged as both design artefact and output of design research. We recognised two fundamentally different kinds of framing metaphors in the set of architectural projects we surveyed, rule-derived and model-derived—terms we are adapting from Choay’s description of “instaurational texts” (8). Rule-derived types describe building forms that navigate the development of a design from a generic to a specific form (Baker 70–71) through a series of discrete “logical operators” (Choay 134). They tend to follow a logic of “begin with x … perform some operation A … perform some operation B … end up with y”. Examples of such operations include add, subtract, scale-translate-rotate, distort and array. Model-derived framing metaphors are different in the way they aim toward an outcome that is an adapted version of an ideal initial form. This involves selecting an existing type and refining it until it suits the required program, site, and context. Examples of the model-derived metaphors we have used include the hedgehog, caterpillar, mountain, cloud, island, and snake as well as architectural Ur-types like the barn, courtyard, tent, treehouse, jetty, and ziggurat. The framing types we included in the Typekit are a combination of rule-derived and model-derived as well as useful hybrids that combined examples from different categories. This classification provides a construct for framing a studio experience while acknowledging that there are other ways of classifying formal types. Fig. 3: Development of isometric drawings of metaphor-frames After we developed a variety of these line drawings, we carried out a synthesis and classification exercise using a version of the KJ method. Like framing, KJ is a technique of abduction developed for dealing objectively with qualitative data without a priori categorisation (Scupin; Kawakita). It has also become an established and widely practiced method within design research (see, for instance, Hanington and Martin 104–5). Themes were developed from the images, and we aimed at balancing a parsimony of typological categories with a saturation of types, that is to capture all observed types/metaphors and to put them in as few buckets as possible. Fig. 4: Synthesis exercise of Typekit metaphors using the KJ method (top); classification detail (bottom) Deploying the Typekit We have successfully deployed the Typekit in architectural design studios at two universities since we started developing it in 2018. As a general process participants adopt a certain metaphor as the starting point of their design. Doing so provides a frame that prefigures other decisions as they move through a concept design process. Once a guiding metaphor is selected, it structures other decision-making by providing a counterfactual logic (Byrne 30). For instance, if a building-as-ramp is chosen as the typology to be deployed this guides a rationale as to where and how it is placed on the site. People should be able to walk on it; it should sit resolutely on the ground and not be floating above it; it should be made of a massive material with windows and doors appearing to be carved out of it; it can have a green occupiable roof; quiet and private spaces should be located at the top away from street noise; active spaces such as a community hall and entry foyer should be located at the bottom of the ramp … and so on. The adoption of the frame of “building-as-ramp” by its very nature is a crucial and critical move in the design process. It is a decision made early in the process that prefigures both “what” and “how” types of questions as the project develops. In the end, the result seems logical even inevitable but there are many other types that could have potentially been explored and these would have posed different kinds of questions and resulted in different kinds of answers during the process. The selection of a guiding metaphor also allows students to engage with historical and contemporary precedents to offer further insights into the development—as well as refinement—of their own projects within that classification. Even given the well-structured nature of the architectural project, precedents provide useful reference points from which to build domain-specific knowledge and benchmarks to measure the differences in approaches still afforded within each typological classification. We believe that our particular meta-framing approach addresses concerns about design fixation and balances mutual learning with opportunities for individual investigation. We position framing less about finding innovative solutions to wicked problems to become more about finding ways for a group of people to reason together through a design problem process by developing and using shared metaphors. Thus our invocation of framing is aligned to what Haase and Laursen term “solution frames” meaning they have an “operational” meaning-making agenda and provide opportunities for developing shared understanding between individuals engaged in a given problem domain (Haase and Laursen 20). By providing a variety of opportunities within an overarching “frame of frames” there are opportunities for parallel design investigation to be undertaken by individual designers. Meta-framing affords opportunities for shared meaning-making and a constructive discourse between different project outcomes. This occurs whether adopting the same type to enable questions including “How is my building-as-snake different from your building-as-snake?”, “Which is the most snake-like?”, or different types (“In what ways is my building-as-ramp different to your building-as-stair?”) By employing everyday visual metaphors, opportunities for “mutual learning between mutual participants” (Robertson and Simonsen 2) are enhanced without the need for substantial domain-specific architectural knowledge at a project’s outset. We argue that the promise of the toolkit and our meta-framing approach more generally is that it actually multiples rather than forecloses opportunities while retaining a shared understanding and language for reasoning through a project domain. This effectively responds to concerns that typology-as-method is a conservative or reductive approach to architectural design. It is important to clarify the role of our toolkit and its relationship to our theory-building agenda. On the basis of the findings accounted for here we do claim to draw specific conclusions about the efficacy of our toolkit. We simply did not collect experimental data relevant to that task. We can, however, use the example of our toolkit to animate, flesh out, and operationalise a model for collaboration in architectural design that may be useful for teaching and practicing architecture in collaborative, team-based contexts. The contribution of this account, therefore, is theoretical. That is, the adaptation of concepts from design literature modified and translated into a new domain to serve new purposes. The Promise of Meta-Framing through Typology Through our work, we have outlined the benefits of adopting formalised design methods in architecture as a way of supporting participation, including using toolkits for scaffolding architectural concept design. Meta-framing has shown itself to be a useful approach to enable participation in architectural design in a number of ways. It provides coherence of an idea and architectural concept. It assists decision-making in any given scenario because a designer can decide which out of a set of choices makes more sense within the “frame” adopted for the project. The question becomes then not “what do I like?” or “what do I want?” but “what makes sense within the project frame?” Finally and perhaps most importantly it brings a common understanding of a project that allows for communication across a team working on the same problem, supporting a variety of different approaches and problem-solving logics a voice. By combining methodologies and toolkits from the design methods literature with architecture’s domain-specific typological classifications we believe we have developed an effective and adaptive model for scaffolding participation and making shared meaning in architecture studio contexts. References Baker, Geoffrey H. Design Strategies in Architecture: An Approach to the Analysis of Form. Taylor and Francis, 2003. Bandini, Micha. “Typology as a Form of Convention.” AA Files 6 (1984): 73–82. Bhatt, Ritu. “Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language: An Alternative Exploration of Space-Making Practices.” Journal of Architecture 15.6 (2010): 711–29. Byrne, Ruth M.J. The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality. MIT P, 2005. Carlile, Paul R. “Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries”. Organization Science 15.5 (2004): 555–68. Choay, Françoise. The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Architecture and Urbanism. MIT P, 1997 [1980]. Crilly, Nathan. “Methodological Diversity and Theoretical Integration: Research in Design Fixation as an Example of Fixation in Research Design?” Design Studies 65 (2019): 78–106. Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing”. Design Studies 3.4 (1982): 221–27. Dawes, Michael J., and Michael J. Ostwald. “Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language: Analysing, Mapping and Classifying the Critical Response.” City, Territory and Architecture 4.1 (2017): 1–14. De Mul, Jos. “Redesigning Design”. In Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive, eds. Bas Van Abel, Lucas Evers, Roel Klaassen, and Peter Troxler. BIS Publishers, 2011. 34–39. Di Mari, Anthony, and Nora Yoo. Operative Design. BIS Publishers, 2012. Dorst, Kees. “The Core of ‘Design Thinking’ and Its Application”. Design Studies 32.6 (2011): 521–32. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006>. ———. Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. Design Thinking, Design Theory. MIT P, 2015. Ehn, Pelle. “Participation in Design Things.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2008. Bloomington, Indiana, 2008. 92–101 Eissa, Doha. “Concept Generation in the Architectural Design Process: A Suggested Hybrid Model of Vertical and Lateral Thinking Approaches.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019). Fish, Stanley E. “Interpreting the ‘Variorum’.” Critical Inquiry 2.3 (1976): 465–85. Grover, Robert, Stephen Emmitt, and Alex Copping. “The Language of Typology.” Arq 23.2 (2019): 149–56. <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135519000198>. Haase, Louise Møller, and Linda Nhu Laursen. “Meaning Frames: The Structure of Problem Frames and Solution Frames”. Design Issues 35.3 (2019): 20–34. <https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00547>. Hanington, Bruce, and Bella Martin. Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers, 2012. Hoolohan, Claire, and Alison L Browne. “Design Thinking for Practice-Based Intervention: Co-Producing the Change Points Toolkit to Unlock (Un)Sustainable Practices.” Design Studies 67 (2020): 102–32. Jacoby, Sam. “Typal and Typological Reasoning: A Diagrammatic Practice of Architecture.” Journal of Architecture 20.6 (2015): 938–61. <https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2015.1116104>. Kawakita, Jiro. “The KJ Method and My Dream towards the ‘Heuristic’ Regional Geography.” Japanese Journal of Human Geography 25.5 (1973): 493–522. Lathouri, Marina. “The City as a Project: Types, Typical Objects and Typologies.” Architectural Design 81.1 (2011): 24–31. Lewis, Paul, Marc Tsurumaki, and David J Lewis. Manual of Section. Princeton Architectural P, 2016. Moneo, José Rafael. Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects. MIT P, 2004. Nicolini, Davide, Jeanne Mengis, and Jacky Swan. “Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration”. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.) 23.3 (2012): 612–29. Oechslin, Werner. “Premises for the Resumption of the Discussion of Typology.” Assemblage 1 (1986): 37–53. Panzano, Megan. “Foreword.” In Operative Design: A Catalogue of Spatial Verbs, by Anthony Di Mari and Nora Yoo. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers, 2012. 6–7. Robertson, Toni, and Jesper Simonsen. “Participatory Design: An Introduction”. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, eds. Toni Robertson and Jesper Simonsen. Taylor and Francis, 2012. 1–18. Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., Eva Brandt, and Thomas Binder. “A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design.” Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference. ACM, 2010. 195–98. DOI: 10.1145/1900441.1900476. Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” Co-Design 4.1 (2008,): 5–18. ———. “Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Codesigning.” CoDesign 10.1 (2014): 5–14. Schön, Donald A. “Problems, Frames and Perspectives on Designing.” Design Studies 5.3 (1984): 132–36. <https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4>. Scolari, Massimo. Oblique Drawing: A History of Anti-Perspective. MIT P, 2012. Scupin, Raymond. “The KJ Method: A Technique for Analyzing Data Derived from Japanese Ethnology.” Human Organization, 1997. 233–37. Shane, David Grahame. "Transcending Type: Designing for Urban Complexity." Architectural Design 81.1 (2011): 128-34. Vaajakallio, Kirsikka, and Tuuli Mattelmäki. “Design Games in Codesign: As a Tool, a Mindset and a Structure.” CoDesign 10.1 (2014): 63–77. <https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.881886>. Visser, Froukje Sleeswijk, Pieter Jan Stappers, Remko van der Lugt, and Elizabeth B.N. Sanders. “Contextmapping: Experiences from Practice.” CoDesign 1.2 (2005): 119–49. Weedon, Scott. “The Core of Kees Dorst’s Design Thinking: A Literature Review.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 33.4 (2019): 425–30. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919854077>. Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice : Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Learning in Doing. Cambridge UP, 1988. Yaneva, Albena. The Making of a Building: A Pragmatist Approach to Architecture. Peter Lang, 2009.