All rights reservedMelgaço, LorenaBaltazar, Ana Paula2023-08-282023-08-282017978-989-99801-3-6 (E-Book)https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/572Book of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Spaces of Dialog for Places of Dignity, Lisbon, 11-14th July, 2017The tacit understanding of a singular path to development still permeates the practice of urban planning in both Global South and North, ignoring “the world epistemological diversity [and] the conflictual plurality of the knowledges that inform social practices” (Santos et al., 2004, p. 19). Even when the interest to situate the local within a globalised world is identified, there is little research that investigates local networks, reflecting what Souza (2011) describes as ‘knocking on the doors, but not entering the houses’, as researchers do not delve into the everyday. Even still, when research does investigate the everyday, the natural step is to appropriate EuroAmerican (that is, central) theoretical frameworks to deal with peripheries, disregarding particular socio-spatial features of local practices. So, the tooling is usually inadequate and out of context reflecting a hegemonic ‘central’ process that packs places full of singularities in the category ‘the periphery’.EnglishOpen AccessTECHNOLOGY::Industrial engineering and economy::Physical planningConference paper113-124