Contenido principal del artículo

Ramón Enrique Aja Ramos
Asociación Gorabide. Bizkaia
España
Jose Ángel Rus Foronda
Asociación Atades Huesca. Huesca
España
Ainhoa Ezquerro Martínez
Asociación Anfas. Navarra
España
Mirko Gerolin Pelucci
Asociación Gorabide. Bizkaia
España
Agustín Illera Martínez
Asociación Gautena. Gipuzkoa
España
Sergio Martínez Torres
Pramar Investigación. Salamanca
España
Carmen Montes Benedicte
Asociación Aspanias. Burgos
España
Gemma Pernía Vela
Asociación Ampros. Cantabria
España
Vol. 51 Núm. 3 (2020), Artículos y experiencias, Páginas 61-82
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14201/scero20205136182
Cómo citar

Resumen

Ampros, Anfas, Aspanias, Atades, Gautena, Gorabide y Plena inclusión presentan una investigación cuyo objetivo es evaluar el impacto del plan individualizado en el que se incluyen los objetivos personales, la calidad de vida y la percepción de las personas. Se establecen puntos de referencia en un análisis longitudinal de los resultados. Con carácter previo a la elaboración del plan individual de cada persona, se han evaluado las necesidades de apoyo y la calidad de vida. En total, han participado 77 personas con discapacidad con diferentes necesidades de apoyo. Los objetivos de cada plan individual se han valorado al finalizar el primer año y al acabar el segundo, momento en el cual se volvieron a aplicar las escalas antes citadas. Se observan diferencias significativas en los resultados obtenidos en función de las necesidades de apoyo y la valoración que realizan los profesionales según los años de contacto con la persona con discapacidad. Se deben tener en cuenta las diferencias por la edad de los participantes, los problemas de comportamiento y la consecución de los objetivos individuales.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Detalles del artículo

Citas

Bächtiger, André; shikano, susumu; Pedrini, seraina; ryser, Mirjam (2009), “Measuring Deliberation 2.0: standards, Discourse types, and sequenzialization”, Paper presen- ted at the ecPr general conference, Postdam, 5-12 sept.

Bimber, b. (1998), “The internet and Political transformation: Populism, community, and Accelerated Pluralism”, Polity, vol. 31, n. 1, pp. 133-160.

Bimber, b.; sthol, c.; flanagin, A. J. (2009), “technological change and the shifting nature of Political organization”, in chadwick, A. & Howard, P. n. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, london, routledge, pp. 72-85.

Black, laura W.; burkhalter, stephanie; gastil, John; stromer- galley, Jennifer (2009), “Methods for Analyzing and Measuring group Deliberation”, in Holbert, l. (ed.), Sourcebook of Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, new York, routledge.

Bohman, James (1996), Public Deliberation: pluralism, complexity and democracy, cambridge, Mit.

Bohman, James (2004), “expanding Dialogue: The internet, the Public sphere and Prospects for transnational Democracy”, The Sociological Review, vol. 52, n. 1, pp. 131-155.

Brundidge, J.; rice, r. e. (2009), “Political engagement online – Do the information rich get richer and the like-Minded more similar?”, in chadwick, A. & Howard, P. n., The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, london, routledge, pp. 144-156.

Chadwick, A.; Howard, P. n. P. (2010), The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, new York, routledge.

Chambers, simone (2003), “Deliberative Democratic Theory”, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 6, pp. 307-326. chambers, simone (2009), “rhetoric and the Public sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?”, Political Theory, vol. 37, n. 3, pp. 323-335.

Dahlberg, lincoln (2005), “The Habermasian Public sphere: taking Difference seriously?” Theory and Society, vol. 34, n. 2, pp. 111-136.

Davis, r. (1999), The Web of Politics – The Internet’s Impact on the American Political System, oxford, oxford university Press.

Dean, J. (2003), “Why the net is not a Public sphere”, Constellations, vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 95-112.

Delli carpini, M. X.; cook, f. l.; Jacobs, l. r. (2004), “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature”, Annual review of political science, vol. 7, pp. 315-44.

Dryzek, John s. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. new York: oxford university Press.

Dryzek, John s. (2005), “Handle with care: The Deadly Hermeneutics of Deliberative instrumentation”, Acta Politica, vol. 40, n. 2, pp. 197-211.

Dryzek, John s. (2007), “Theory, evidence, and the tasks of Deliberation”, in rosenberg, s., Deliberation, parti- cipation and democracy: can the people govern?, new York, Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 237-250.

Dryzek, John s. (2010), “rhetoric in Democracy: A systemic Appreciation”, Political Theory, vol. 38, n. 3, pp. 319-339. Dryzek, John s.; niemeyer, simon (2006), “reconciling Pluralism and consensus as Political ideals”, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, n. 3, pp. 634-649. freelon, Deen g. (2010), “Analyzing online Political Discussion using three Models of Democratic communication”, New Media & Society, vol. 12, n. 7, pp. 1172-1190.

Garcez, r. l.; Maia, r. c. M. (2009), “lutas por reconhe- cimento dos surdos na internet: efeitos políticos do testemunho”, Revista de Sociologia e Política, vol. 17, pp. 131-144.

Gastil, John (2003) “exploring the Potential for Democratic Deliberation and socialization in online groups”, paper presented at the congress Democracy on the digital age – The information society project, Yale law school.

Gerhards, Jürgen; schäfer, Mike s. (2010), “is the internet a better Public sphere? comparing old and new Media in the USA and Germany”, New Media & Society, vol. 12, n. 1, pp. 143-160.

Gimmler, A. (2001), “Deliberative Democracy, the Public sphere and the internet”, Philosophy and social criti- cism. vol. 27, n. 4, pp. 21-39.

Goodin, robert e. (2005), “sequencing Deliberative Moments”, Acta Politica, vol. 40, n. 2, pp. 182-196. graham, todd; Witschge, tamara (2003), “insearch of online

Deliberation: towards a new Method for examining the Quality of online Discussions”, Communications, vol. 28, n. 2, pp. 173-204.

granjon, fabien (2001), L’internet militant – mouvement social et usages des réseaux télématiques, Paris, Éditions Apogée.

gutmann, Amy; thompson, Dennis (2004), “Why Deliberative Democracy?” Princeton / oxford, Princeton university Press, 217 p.

Habermas, J. (1997), Direito e Democracia: entre a factici- dade e a validade, rio de Janeiro, tempo brasileiro.

Habermas, Jürgen (2005), “concluding comments on empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, Acta Politica, vol. 40, n. 3, pp. 384-392.

Hardy, b. W., Jamieson, K. H.; Winneg, K. (2009), “The role of the internet in identifying Deception during the 2004 us Presidential campaign”, in chadwick,

A. & Howard, P. n. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, london, routledge, pp. 131-143.

Hendriks, carolyn M. (2006), “integrated Deliberation: reconciling civil society’s Dual role in Deliberative Democracy”, Political Studies, vol. 54, n.3, pp. 486-508. Janssen, Davy; Kies, raphaël (2005), “online forums and Deliberative Democracy”, Acta Politica, vol. 40, pp. 317-335.

Lev-on, Azi; Manin, bernard (2009), “Happy Accidents: Deliberation and online exposure to opposing views”, in Davies, todd; gangadharan, seeta (eds.), Online

Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice, chicago, center for the study of language and information, pp. 105-122.

Mackie, gerry (2006), “Does Democratic Deliberation change Minds?”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, vol. 5, n. 3, pp. 279-303.

Macpherson, c. b. (1977), A democracia liberal – origens e evolução, rio de Janeiro, Zahar editores.

Maia, rousiley c. M. (ed.) (2008), Mídia e Deliberação, rio de Janeiro, editora fgv.

Mansbridge, J. (1999), “everyday talk in Deliberative system”, in Macedo, stephen (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, new York, oxford university Press, pp. 211-239.

Mansbridge, Jane (2007), “Deliberative Democracy or Democratic Deliberation?”, in rosenberg, s., Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, new York, Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 251-271.

Mansbridge, Jane; bohman, James; chambers, simone; estlund, David; follesdal, Andreas; fung, Archon; lafont, cristina; Manin; bernard; Martí, José luis (2010), “The Place of self-interest and the role of Power in Deliberative Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 18, n. 1, pp. 64-100.

Marques, Ângela (2007), O Processo Deliberativo a partir das Margens: o programa Bolsa-Família na mídia e na fala das beneficiárias. tese (Doutorado em comunicação social), faculdade de filosofia e ciências Humanas, universidade federal de Minas gerais, belo Horizonte.

Mendonça, r. f. (2009), Reconhecimento e Deliberação: as lutas das pessoas atingidas pela hanseníase em di- ferentes âmbitos interacionais. tese (Doutorado em comunicação social) – fAficH, universidade federal de Minas gerais, belo Horizonte, 2009.

Mendonça, r. f. (2011), “reconhecimento e (qual?) deli- beração”, Opinião Pública, vol. 17, n. 1, pp. 206-227.

Mendonça, r. f.; santos, D. b. (2009), “A cooperação na deliberação pública: um estudo de caso sobre o refe- rendo acerca da proibição da comercialização de armas de fogo no brasil”, DADOS, vol. 52, n. 2, pp. 507-542.

Mutz, Diana (2006), Hearing the other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy, cambridge / new York, cambridge university Press, 171 p.

Norris, P. (2001), Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & and the Internet Worldwide, cambridge, cambridge university Press.

Parkinson, John (2003), The Legitimation of Deliberative Democracy, tese (Doutorado em ciência Política), research school of social sciences, Australian national university, canberra.

Pereira, Marcus Abílio (2008), Cyberativismo e demo- cracia - Movimentos Sociais e novos repertórios e acção. tese (Doutorado em sociologia do estado, do Direito e Administração) - faculdade de economia, universidade de coimbra, Portugal.

Polletta, f.; lee, J. (2006), “is telling stories good for Democracy? rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11”, American sociological review, vol. 71, n. 5, pp. 699-723. Polletta, francesca (2008), “Just talk: Public Deliberation after 9/11”, Journal of Public Deliberation, vol. 4, n. 1, pp. 1-22.

Rosenberg, shawn (2007), “An introduction: Theoretical Perspectives and empirical research on Deliberative Democracy”, in rosenberg, s., Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, new York, Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1-25.

Sæbø, Ø.; rose, J.; Molka-Danielsen, Judith (2009), “e-Participation: Designing and Managing Political Discussion forums”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 28, n. 4, pp. 403-426.

Steenbergen, M. r.; bächtiger, A., spörndli, M.; steiner, J. (2003), “Measuring Deliberation: a Discourse Quality index”, Comparative European Politics, vol. 1, n. 1, pp. 21-48.

Stromer-galley, Jennifer (2007), “Measuring Deliberation’s content: A coding scheme”, Journal of Public Deliberation, vol. 3, n. 1, pp. 1-35.

Thompson, Dennis (2008), “Deliberative Democratic Theory and empirical Political science”, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11, pp. 497-520.

Wales, corinne; cotterill, sarah; smith, graham (2010), “Do citizens ‘Deliberate’ in on-line Discussion forums? Preliminary findings from an internet experiment”, paper prepared for the Participatory and Democracy specialist group at the Political studies Association conference, edinburgh.

Wilhelm, Anthony g. (2000), Democracy in the Digital Age, new York, routledge.

Wojcieszak, M. e.; Mutz, Diana c. (2009), “online groups and Political Discourse: Do online Discussion spaces facilitate exposure to Political Disagreement?”, Journal of Communication, vol. 59, n. 1, pp. 40-56.

Wright, scott; street, John (2007), “Democracy, Deliberation and Design: the case of online Discussion forums”, New Media and Society, vol. 9, n. 5, pp. 849-869.

Young, iris (2000), Inclusion and Democracy, oxford, Oxford university Press.

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a