The Lectorate of Inclusive Education had its official start at the inaugural speech by Aminata Cairo on January 17, 2018. Since then a team of dedicated people have given shape and form to the lectorate. Some have come and gone since then, each contributing in their own way. Inclusive Education is an elusive term. It is not clear-cut and many people do not know what it means. Inherently it is linked to diversity issues, which have become associated with "having to deal with the other", discrimination, exclusion, and more of such bothersome issues. Inclusion is about doing it however, about making it happen. Inclusive education is about creating optimal learning opportunities to accommodate students of all backgrounds, but requires dealing with those difficult issues. The language is not available, the level of comfort is not available, and so here is a whole lectorate dedicated to dealing with this pesky implication that somehow we are not doing something right. That is one way of looking at it. There is some truth in that as well. As successful as our educational systems have been throughout hundreds of years, we now acknowledge that it has not been successful for all who attempt to partake and not necessarily due to their lack of effort. So, somehow we have fallen short. Who wants to talk about that? We need to talk about that, but how? We need to have the sensitivity that the conversation might be difficult and complex. We need to acknowledge that the conversation might require us to open up and be vulnerable. We need to be brave, but the conversation must happen. In this volume the members of the knowledge circle and student branch have taken a first step. The assignment was to write about their involvement with the lectorate, but to share where their passion came from. There is a reason why you are so passionate about this (difficult) topic, something about your story that drives you to want to do this. Share that. It was not an easy task for all, even if only in one paragraph. After all, it requires one to open a window into one's soul. We cannot expect and lead people into the difficult conversations if we are not willing to lead by example. As you will see, they lived up to the task. Hoping that our first step will be an inspiration for you to take the next.
Within the context of the information society, access to computers and the internet has been considered to be a new fault line in social exclusion. This has resulted in numerous initiatives on e-inclusion. There is however a second development, that of evidence-based practice, the approach that wants results of effectiveness studies to be an important inspiration for practice. Where these developments intersect, we find the issue of whether e-inclusion interventions are effective, of whether they reach their aim. It is common to label projects as "good practice", but do we have an assessment framework to justify using labels such as "good" or "best"? Does providing excluded citizens with access to computers and internet indeed help them to become socially included? And can we distinguish different types of initiatives and assess them according to their effectiveness?
This paper discusses the meaning of inclusive education for deaf learners in a way that acknowledges the diversity of learner identities, and outlines problems with normative definitions of inclusive education as advanced by recent interpretations of Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This discussion calls on us to reconsider how the concepts of inclusion and segregation are understood in education for all learners with intersectional identities. We outline the legislative history of the CRPD and Article 24, show the active involvement of deaf advocacy organisations, and highlight contradictions with this history in the CRPD Committee’s recent General Comment No. 4 on Article 24. We provide examples of innovative models of inclusive education for deaf learners that provide an education in sign language and discuss the implications of these arguments for inclusive education as a whole.
LINK
Digital innovations in the field of immersive Augmented Reality (AR) can be a solution to offer adults who are mentally, physically or financially unable to attend sporting events such as premier league football a stadium and match experience. This allows them to continue to connect with their social networks. In the intended project, AR content will be further developed with the aim of evoking the stadium experience of home matches as much as possible. The extent to which AR enriches the experience is then tested in an experiment, in which the experience of a football match with and without AR enrichment is measured in a stadium setting and in a home setting. The experience is measured with physiological signals. In addition, a subjective experience measure is also being developed and benchmarked (the experience impact score). Societal issueInclusion and health: The joint experience of (top) sports competitions forms a platform for vulnerable adults, with a limited social capital, to build up and maintain the social networks that are so necessary for them. AR to fight against social isolation and loneliness.
ALE organised an event with Parktheater Eindhoven and LSA-citizens (the Dutch umbrella organisation for active citizens). Five ALE students from the minor Imagineering and business/social innovation took responsibility for concept and actual organisation. On Jan 18th, they were supported by six other group members of the minor as volunteers. An IMEM-team of 5 students gathered materials for a video that can support the follow-up actions of the organisers. The students planned to deliver their final product on February 9th. The theatre will critically assess the result and compare it to the products often realised by students from different schools or even professional ones, like Veldkamp productions. Time will tell whether future opportunities will come up for IMEM. The collaboration of ALE and IMEM students is possible and adding value to the project.More than 180 visitors showed interest in the efforts of 30 national and local citizen initiatives presenting themselves on the market square in the theatre and the diverse speakers during the plenary session. The students created a great atmosphere using the qualities of the physical space and the hospitality of the theatre. Chair of the day, Roland Kleve, kicked off and invited a diverse group of people to the stage: Giel Pastoor, director of the theatre, used the opportunity to share his thoughts on the shifting role of theatre in our dynamic society. Petra Ligtenberg, senior project manager SDG NL https://www.sdgnederland.nl/sdgs/ gave insights to the objectives and progress of the Netherlands. Elly Rijnierse, city maker and entrepreneur from Den Haag, presented her intriguing efforts in her own neighbourhood in the city to create at once both practical and social impacts on SDG 11 (sustainable city; subgoal 3.2). Then the alderman Marcel Oosterveer informed the visitors about Eindhoven’s efforts on SDGs. The plenary ended with very personal interviews of representatives of two impressive citizen initiatives (Parkinson to beat; Stichting Ik Wil). In the two workshop rounds, ALE took responsibility for two workshops. Firstly the workshop: Beyond SDG cherrypicking: using the Economy for the common good’, in cooperation with citizen initiative Ware winst Brabant en Parktheater (including Social innovation-intern Jasper Box), secondly a panel dialogue on local partnerships (SDG 17) for the sustainable city (SDG 11) addressing inclusion (SDG 10) and the livability (SDG 3) with 11 representatives from local/provincial government, companies, third sector and, of course: citizen initiatives.
The impacts of tourism on destinations and the perceptions of local communities have been a major concern both for the industry and research in the past decades. However, tourism planning has been mainly focused on traditions that promote the increase of tourism without taking under consideration the wellbeing of both residents and visitors. To develop a more sustainable tourism model, the inclusion of local residents in tourism decision-making is vital. However, this is not always possible due to structural, economic and socio-cultural restrictions that residents face resulting to their disempowerment. This study aims to explore and interpret the formal processes around tourism decision-making and community empowerment in urban settings. The research proposes a comparative study of three urban destinations in Europe (The Hague in the Netherlands, San Sebastian in Spain and, Ioannina in Greece) that experience similar degree of tourism growth. The proposed study will use a design-based approach in order to understand tourism decision-making and what empowers or disempowers community participation within the destinations. Based on the findings of primary and secondary data, a community empowerment model will be applied in one the destinations as a pilot for resident engagement in tourism planning. The evaluation of the pilot will allow for an optimized model to be created with implications for tourism planning at a local level that can contribute to sustainable destinations that safeguard the interests of local residents and tourists.
