Engineering design motivations : a qualitative and quantitative analysis of university students

What motivates students to perform and pursue engineering design tasks? This study examines this question by way of three Learning Through Service (LTS) programs: 1) an on-going longitudinal study examining the impacts of service on engineering students, 2) an on-going analysis of an international senior design capstone program, and 3) an on-going evaluation of an international graduate-level research program. The evaluation of these programs incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods, utilizing surveys, questionnaires, and interviews, which help to provide insight on what motivates students to do engineering design work. The quantitative methods were utilized in analyzing various instruments including: a Readiness assessment inventory, Intercultural Development Inventory, Sustainable Engineering through Service Learning survey, the Impacts of Service on Engineering Students’ survey, Motivational narratives, as well as some analysis for interview text. The results of these instruments help to provide some much needed insight on how prepared students are to participate in engineering programs. Additional qualitative methods include: Word clouds, Motivational narratives, as well as interview analysis. This thesis focused on how these instruments help to determine what motivates engineering students to pursue engineering design tasks. These instruments aim to collect some more in-depth information than the quantitative instruments will allow. Preliminary results suggest that of the 120 interviews analyzed Interest/Enjoyment, Application of knowledge and skills, as well as gaining knowledge are key motivating factors regardless of gender or academic level. Together these findings begin to shed light on what motivates students to perform engineering design tasks, which can be applied for better recruitment and retention in university programs.

Postoperative hypoesthesia and pain: qualitative assessment after open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is an important outcome variable after inguinal hernia repair that is generally not assessed by objective methods. The aim of this study was to objectively investigate chronic pain and hypoesthesia after inguinal hernia repair using three types of operation: open suture, open mesh, and laparoscopic. METHODS: A total of 96 patients were included in the study with a median follow-up of 4.7 years. Open suture repair was performed in 40 patients (group A), open mesh repair in 20 patients (group B), and laparoscopic repair in 36 patients (group C). Hypoesthesia and pain were assessed using von Frey monofilaments. Quality of life was investigated with Short Form 36. RESULTS: Pain occurring at least once a week was found in 7 (17.5%) patients of group A, in 5 (25%) patients of group B, and in 6 (16.6%) patients of group C. Area and intensity of hyposensibility were increased significantly after open nonmesh and mesh repair compared to those after laparoscopy (p = 0.01). Hyposensibility in patients who had laparoscopic hernia repair was significantly associated with postoperative pain (p = 0.03). Type of postoperative pain was somatic in 19 (61%), neuropathic in 9 (29%), and visceral in 3 (10%) patients without significant differences between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of hypoesthesia in patients who had laparoscopic hernia repair is significantly lower than in those who had open hernia repair. Hypoesthesia after laparoscopic but not after open repair is significantly associated with postoperative pain. Von Frey monofilaments are important tools for the assessment of inguinal hypoesthesia and pain in patients who had inguinal hernia repair allowing quantitative and qualitative comparison between various surgical techniques.

A Qualitative Study on the Adoption of Copyright Assignment Agreements (CAA) and Copyright License Agreements (CLA) within Selected FOSS Projects

Open source software projects are multi-collaborative works incorporating the contributions of numerous developers who, in spite of publishing their code under a public license such as GPL, Apache or BSD, retain the copyright in their contributions. Having multiple copyright-owners can make the steering of a project difficult, if not impossible, as there is no ultimate authority able to take decisions relating to the maintenance and use of the project. This predicament can be remedied by centring the dispersed copyrights in a single authority via contributor agreements. Whether to introduce contributor agreements, and if so in which form, is a pressing question for many emerging, but also for established projects. The current paper provides an insight into the ethos of different projects and their reason for adopting or rejecting particular contributor agreements. It further examines the exact set-up of the contributor agreements used and concludes that smart drafting can blur the difference between CAAs and CLAs to a considerable extent, manoeuvring them into a legal grey area. To avoid costly litigation to test the legal enforceability of individual clauses, this paper proposes the establishment of an international committee comprised of developers, product managers and lawyers interested in finding a common terminology that may serve as a foundation for every contributor agreement