Whenever I read pieces about working with kids with disabilities, whether it's re: teaching, social work, medicine, etc. and I see suggestions about how to work with these populations in ways unique to them, it really makes me think about the beauty of universal design. In the Palombo article, for example, saying that "the therapeutic process is open-ended and conceived as occurring during a series of moments" for kids with learning disabilities and suggesting that's not the case for anyone else feels weird to me. Sure it is important to keep that in mind when working with LD kids, but wouldn't everybody benefit from their therapist having the approach that therapeutic process is open-ended rather than solution-oriented? Reading the "moments" section of this piece took me aback because this just all seems more or less like best therapeutic practice period. The division of the therapeutic interaction into types of "moments" (concordant moments, complementary moments, and disjunctive moments) feels useful from a theoretical stance in terms of understanding the therapeutic interaction from a therapist's perspective, but a) how useful is that for practice b) how unique is that to LD kids c) what is this obsession with classification and division when we're talking about clinical work?? I just think if we used all of the "special needs" theoretical approaches more broadly we would help way more people - universal design benefits everyone! Like how having a ramp in front of a building doesn't just help people in wheelchairs, but seniors and young kids and amputees and people with sight impairments and people with broken bones etc. etc.