Beyond engagement theatre: challenging institutional constraints of participatory planning practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Nicholas Kamols ◽  
Marcus Foth ◽  
Mirko Guaralda
Spatium ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 17-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasa Colic ◽  
Omiljena Dzelebdzic

Participation has been present in the Serbian legal framework in the domain of urban planning since the 1950s. Its scope and legal definition have evolved with the transition to democracy, markets and decentralised governance. In line with EU standards, Serbia introduced an additional level of participation in the form of early public inquiry in 2014. Still, participatory planning practice is often seen as a formality which lacks sufficient effect on the planning solution, and requires qualitative improvements in citizen and stakeholder involvement. The main aim of this paper is to suggest that the use of alternative methods of participation in the domains of informing, consultation and active participation may increase the effectiveness of participatory planning practice. Thus, this paper points out some examples of good practice, and argues for the importance of recognising the existing base of knowledge and expertise in order to respond to contemporary requirements in the field of urban planning.


2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aulia Akbar ◽  
Johannes Flacke ◽  
Javier Martinez ◽  
Martin F. A. M. van Maarseveen

Author(s):  
Laura S. DeThorne ◽  
Kelly Searsmith

Purpose The purpose of this article is to address some common concerns associated with the neurodiversity paradigm and to offer related implications for service provision to school-age autistic students. In particular, we highlight the need to (a) view first-person autistic perspectives as an integral component of evidence-based practice, (b) use the individualized education plan as a means to actively address environmental contributions to communicative competence, and (c) center intervention around respect for autistic sociality and self-expression. We support these points with cross-disciplinary scholarship and writings from autistic individuals. Conclusions We recognize that school-based speech-language pathologists are bound by institutional constraints, such as eligibility determination and Individualized Education Program processes that are not inherently consistent with the neurodiversity paradigm. Consequently, we offer examples for implementing the neurodiversity paradigm while working within these existing structures. In sum, this article addresses key points of tension related to the neurodiversity paradigm in a way that we hope will directly translate into improved service provision for autistic students. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13345727


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document