Search results

Purpose: We critically examine the idea of neurodiversity, or the uniqueness of all brains, as the foundation for the neurodiversity movement, which began as an autism rights movement. We explore the neurodiversity movement's potential to support cross-disability alliances that can transform cultures.

Methods/Approach: A neurodiverse team reviewed literature about the history of the neurodiversity movement and associated participatory research methodologies and drew from our experiences guiding programs led, to varying degrees, by neurodivergent people. We highlight two programs for autistic university students, one started by and for autistics and one developed in collaboration with autistic and nonautistic students. These programs are contrasted with a national self-help group started by and for stutterers that is inclusive of “neurotypicals.”

Findings: Neurodiversity-aligned practices have emerged in diverse communities. Similar benefits and challenges of alliance building within versus across neurotypes were apparent in communities that had not been in close contact. Neurodiversity provides a framework that people with diverse conditions can use to identify and work together to challenge shared forms of oppression. However, people interpret the neurodiversity movement in diverse ways. By honing in on core aspects of the neurodiversity paradigm, we can foster alliances across diverse perspectives.

Implications/ Values: Becoming aware of power imbalances and working to rectify them is essential for building effective alliances across neurotypes. Sufficient space and time are needed to create healthy alliances. Participatory approaches, and approaches solely led by neurodivergent people, can begin to address concerns about power and representation within the neurodiversity movement while shifting public understanding.

The debate about tackling online misinformation and disinformation is not unique to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the health crisis has elevated the danger of misleading information circulated on social media. Labelled as ‘infodemic’, the problem of COVID-19-related misinformation and disinformation prompted governments and social media platforms around the globe to impose various speech restrictions. The public and private policy frameworks aiming to curb the spread of the infodemic were adopted in a state of emergency and without proper scrutiny. Yet, they are shaping the future of content regulation, possibly affecting freedom of speech and other democratic values for years to come. This chapter looks at the key problematic aspects of actions taken by governments and social media platforms to address COVID-19-related misinformation and disinformation and discusses the possible long-term effects of these measures.

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the question of whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be used as a link of trust between business and society, and which role CSR plays in recovering distrust in businesses. It uses a mixed methods study of processes of moving businesses within the Danish water sector from a general trust-breakdown to trust recovery from 2003 to 2013.

Trust recovery is found to depend on stakeholders’ mutual engagement with each other and their willingness to share knowledge and learn from each other’s professional and institutional cultures and languages. An alignment of vocabularies of motives between regulation and voluntary CSR is found to be useful for building trust between conflicting parties. Furthermore the findings shows that the more stakeholders’ languages, motives and logics can coexist, the more trust can be recovered.

The research is limited by a study of one business sector in one country and the findings have implications greater than the local contexts of which it is researched, because it is usable in other sectors that suffer from severe trust-breakdowns such as government systems in both the public and private sectors.

This chapter suggests a theoretical extension of Bogenschneider and Corbett’s (2010) Community Dissonance Theory to embrace multiple stakeholders each having their own complex and unique culture and communication modus based on their institutional, professional or individual comprehensive language universes. This includes knowledge-sharing and educative diffusion of the stakeholders’ language universes’ vocabularies including its important nouns, verbs, terminologies, semantics, taxonomies and axioms as well as the stakeholders’ motives and logics implemented into these universes.

A strong indication of the reasons behind minority mayors' shift from deracialization can be found in the changes in the U.S. population over the last two decades. The changes in population has eroded – or potentially is in the process of eroding – a key variable in the election of minority mayors: the presence of a majority Black population. For example, with cities losing Black population while gaining Whites and Latinos, the conditions under which Black candidates run for mayor in many U.S. cities are quite different from the experience of the first elected Black mayors. Washington, DC has lost 16% of its Black population since 1990. Between 2000 and 2010, the Black population decreased by 6%. Yet, during the same time period, the district has experienced increases in White population, with a 14% increase since 2000. With a Black population of less than 50% as compared to a Black population over 70% in 1980, the district has enjoyed the distinction of no longer being a majority-Black city (Washington Post, 2007). Atlanta, Georgia also has experienced a loss of Black population (Cox News Service, 2007). These data are suggestive of trends where, if they continue, ambitious Black candidates for mayor will find their electoral coalitions composed of increased numbers of Whites and Latinos in areas where Blacks have dominated for decades.

This chapter focuses on accountability and accreditation policies and practices in teacher education in the United States, England, Wales, and China. Despite the differences between countries, issues and problems of teacher education from country to country are remarkably similar. As a profession, we must examine where we are and where we need to be to meet the needs of our global society. We can begin by defining quality teaching and the essential skills for 21st-century teachers and students. As part of a global profession, teachers and educators must not work in isolation. It will be up to the leaders in the profession to educate political and accreditation bodies by sharing models that will meet the needs of our changing world. Can we give up the nostalgic notions of education and provide assistance to education preparation professionals to move toward new rapid-change models?