Search results

The massive investment in, and development of, automated and connected transport (ACT) technology development has triggered much debate about this breakthrough technology’s potential positive and negative impacts. Multiple studies have explored the potential direct implications for users in terms of road safety, ‘productive’ travel time, mobility of the elderly and physically less mobile persons, as well as indirect impacts such as reduced emissions and freed road space. Through a critical review of the literature on ACT deployment types and discussions with an expert working group on the wider impacts of ACT implementation, this chapter examines four distinct deployment types of ACT technology and their opportunities and threats in transitioning toward inclusive transport systems. Of the four types, we posit that ACT-based public transport has the greatest potential to contribute to a more inclusive mobility future. Examining the case of Singapore using policy documents, academic literature and interviews with representatives of public and private sectors and academia, the chapter draws policy recommendations for governance toward more inclusive ACT innovation and deployment.

In this chapter, we discuss the merits and challenges of organic communication within an inclusive, iterative research design through our research project ‘Improving the quality of life of families with parents with intellectual disabilities (IDs) and their children (<12 years) by means of assistive robotics’. We will discuss the research process, its key steps and preliminary findings, as well as how inclusivity of participants was taken along throughout this process. The links between research design, designers and project participants are explored and reflected on. Our positions as researchers within the research process are also reflected upon. We will additionally address the implications of our research for the broader field of inclusive design for assistive robotics and the creative methodologies employed and tailored to the needs of families headed by parents with an ID and their children. In this, we keep a close eye on the difficulties such families face within the context of our research project. Lastly, we reflect on several key markers of collaboration within marginalised communities we encountered in our research.

In this chapter, we discuss talent development in the context of higher education. After discussing the advantages and disadvantages of inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent development, we present empirical data that detail how the participants of a focus group study perceive talent development in higher education. Our data show the importance of a contextualized reading of talent development as the competitive context in academia hinders an inclusive focus on talent development. This context results in a performance-centred, instead of a development-centred approach to talent management, where outperforming others in narrowly defined areas (e.g. publication record) is the main goal. We show that in such a context the development of competitive talent is rewarded, and the development of communal talent is not. The focus on performance instead of (inclusive) development becomes more pronounced when employees move through their career and is believed to have several negative consequences. Mostly women perceived that such a non-inclusive approach to talent development hinders the development and deployment of their talents and obstructs their career progression.

The development of inclusive education, characterised by both universal momentum and geopolitical differences, has largely omitted children and young people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. For this group, access to educational opportunities at all has been slow to be won, and separation for ‘special care’ for their very high support needs is the norm. There have been advances in recognising the human rights and indeed humanity of people with the most profound intellectual disabilities, but the focus of educationalists has often been on how to foster and document fine-grained learning gains and on the specialist nature of the teaching they need. In this chapter, in contrast, the emphasis is on how the spirit of ‘Nothing about us without us’ can extend to children and young people with profound intellectual disabilities such that they are at the heart rather than periphery of the education and research process. The potential for belonging in education and research is illustrated through exploratory work on doing research inclusively with children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in two English special school classes. The starting point is seeking to know them from being with them in a particular way. The knowledge shared in the chapter is a mix of big picture state of the art overview and deep intersubjective knowledge/feeling created together with children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. The implications for future research in inclusion include the need to start from a different mindset in which belonging and reciprocity inform an asset-based approach.

This chapter describes experiences of inclusion from the perspective of young adults with Down syndrome, participating in an intensive education to work (EtW) training programme. The programme, designed by a non-governmental organisation (NGO), was conducted within a private university in Australia working in partnership with the NGO.

Drawing from a broader formative evaluation of the programme, the case study investigated how inclusion was described and understood by the student participants and individuals involved in facilitating or supporting the programme. Data collection involved conducting a focus group interview with student participants and face-to-face interviews with their teachers, a student volunteer and two university lecturers who interacted with students in the programme. The findings have been used to improve the processes of the programme currently undergoing its third iteration.

Findings suggest the need to consider at least two levels of provision in the development of equitable education for individuals participating in this programme. These include considering their voices at the level of programme design, and secondly, deliberately facilitating disability confidence programs for university students and staff.

The study notes that embedding education to employment training programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities within university settings provide them with opportunities to experience and access higher education; however, more investigations are needed to ascertain what equitable higher education in practice means for them.

Globalization of agriculture via the evergreen revolution (which encompasses large-scale production-collection-cleaning-processing-packaging-transportation-storage-distribution-sale of high-value cereals-fruits-flowers-vegetables-agrofuel-feedstock through technology-intensive global value chains) has opened the door to corporate capital involvement in agriculture. While the mainstream perspectives and international organizations have optimistically viewed this as a catalyst for inclusive growth, this article seeks to unveil the concealed hegemony of capital underlying the ostensibly beneficial façade of the evergreen revolution. It underscores the concerns regarding the immiseration of asset-poor farmers, petty nonfarm entrepreneurs and labourers resulting from the globalization of agriculture. Furthermore, it explores the implications for micro and macro food security in this context.

The United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) emphasises the need for those with disabilities to be guaranteed full access to participation in society (United Nations, 2006). This rights-based approach in higher education foregrounds the importance of removing practical and attitudinal barriers within how institutions, or staff, interact with students with traumatic brain injury (TBI) that facilitate their access. This chapter summarises the key findings of my PhD thesis where I use my unique positioning as a TBI survivor and status as a PhD student to gain deeper understanding of the experience of access for neurodiverse students in higher education. I contend that we can be marginalised in these settings. In this chapter, I argue for the importance of student voice in decision and policymaking processes in higher education, aligning with ‘nothing about us, without us’ (Charlton, 2000). A blended methodology of autoethnography and phenomenology was used in my scholarship, which meant listening to the perspectives of students with TBI who often navigate the educational environment differently. Loss, change of identity and care are significant factors in shaping experiences. This research has much to offer as it uses the researcher's and participant's voices to transform rather than maintain the status quo regarding access for students with TBI. Inclusive education must place flexibility and diversity at its core and consider the person when putting academic programmes and support in place.

In academia, assessment is often narrow in its focus on research productivity, its application of a limited number of standardised metrics and its summative approach aimed at selection. This approach, corresponding to an exclusive, subject-oriented concept of talent management, can be thought of as at odds with a broader view of the role of academic institutions as accelerating and improving science and scholarship and its societal impact. In recent years, open science practices as well as research integrity issues have increased awareness of the need for a more inclusive approach to assessment and talent management in academia, broadening assessment to reward the full spectrum of academic activities and, within that spectrum, deepening assessment by critically reflecting on the processes and indicators involved (both qualitative and quantitative). In terms of talent management, this would mean a move from research-focused assessment to assessment including all academic activities (including education, professional performance and leadership), a shift from focus on the individual to a focus on collaboration in teams (recognising contributions of both academic and support staff), increased attention for formative assessment and greater agency for those being evaluated, as well as around the data, tools and platforms used in assessment. Together, this represents a more inclusive, subject-oriented approach to talent management. Implementation of such changes requires involvement from university management, human resource management and academic and support staff at all career levels, and universities would benefit from participation in mutual learning initiatives currently taking shape in various regions of the world.

This final chapter of this book highlights and critically discusses some specific issues concerning talent management in the context of higher education raised in the chapters of this book. It recapitulates the transition higher education is going through. This transition started decades ago but was boosted by the movements of Open Science and Recognition and Rewards. It leads to a reorientation on the conceptualization of academic performance and subsequently also on the meaning of talent and talent management in academia. It points to a shift from an exclusive and performance orientation on talent, to an inclusive, developmental approach to talent management or a hybrid form. Yet, Thunnissen and Boselie state that there is a talent crisis in academia, and this crisis urges the need for more innovative ways of developing and implementing talent management practices. This chapter ends with some recommendations for further talent management research and practice.