Social Inclusion through sports for children with intellectual disabilities

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20

International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Implications of social capital for the inclusion of people with disabilities and families in community life

LESLEY CHENOWETH & DANIELA STEHLIK

To cite this article: LESLEY CHENOWETH & DANIELA STEHLIK (2004) Implications of social capital for the inclusion of people with disabilities and families in community life, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8:1, 59-72, DOI: 10.1080/1360311032000139467

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311032000139467

Published online: 02 Aug 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1523

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

INT. ]. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, ]AN-MAR 2004, VOL. 8, NO. }, 59-72 f.':\ Taylor & Francis ~ T•yfor&FranclsGn:ttlp

Implications of social capital for the inclusion of people with disabilities and families in community life

LESLEY CHENOWETH and DANIEI.A STEHUK (Onginally received 15 January Z003; accepted 7 August Z003)

This paper seeks to ascertain the usefulness of the theory of social capital as a framework for -developing and sustaining the inclusion of people with disabilities and families in community life. We discuss the theoretical elements of social capital and assess its relevance when understanding both the experiences of people with disabilities and their families and the possible implications for policy and programme efforts to promote inclusion. Preliminary findings from two studies of the experiences and social networks of people with disabilities and their families in communities in regional and rural Australia are presented. It is argued that to date, people with disabilities and their families have largely been excluded from the broader social capital debate and that social capital thinking has had minimal influence on efforts to achieve the inclusion of people with disabilities into community life. It is further argued that new paradigms of support are needed that build capacity and social capital through working alongside individuals and families to influence not only outcomes for them, but also for the communities on which they live. The local area coordination model as it has developed in Australia since 1989 provides some instructive signposts for integrating individual, family and community approaches. It is concluded that social capital theory can make a contribution to inclusion theory and practice but we should use it with circumspection.

Embracing inclusion

For several decades, the disability movement has been working towards what has been variously termed community living, getting an ordinary life, community participation and inclusion (Bradley et al. 1994, Oliver and Barnes 1998). Presented as a major paradigm shift to community membership, the essential and overarching aim has been to create places and social spaces within our communities, where people with disabilities and families are fully accepted and are afforded the same opportunities for participation as non-disabled people. Fundamental to this is an accepted and assumed knowledge about what inclusion is and what it means.

The most substantial debates and discussions of inclusion are located within education where inclusion has been a major force within education policy and research (e.g. Slee 2001, Swain and Cook 2001). Within

Lesley Chenoweth is at the School of Social Work & Applied Human Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane Q 4072, Australia; Dame/a Stehlik is at the Central Queensland University Rockhampton, Q 4702, Australia. Correspondence should be addressed to Lesley Chenoweth: e-mail~ [email protected]

Inrernational JoUNial oflndusiw Education ISSN 1360-3116 print/ISSN 1464-5173 online 10 2004 Taylor & p · Ltd http:flwww.tandf.eo.uk/journals ranc•s

DOl: 10.1080/1360311032000139467

60 LESLEY CHENOWETH AND DANIEUI STEHUK

education literature, there are numerous definitions of inclusive education and how it should be achieved. Several themes can be distilled from this literature that have relevance for the broader project of community inclusion.

First, there is an important differentiation of 'inclusion' from its predecessor 'integration' (Oliver 1996, Northway 2001). While much of this could be argued as mere semantics, there is a view that the integration/ segregation binary is more technical and involves strategies whereby disabled people are made to fit into the mainstream. The 'part' (e.g. a child with a disability) requires some action to bring it into the 'whole' overcome segregation. Inclusion, on the other hand, is positioned from a starting point of the whole having many parts but each none the less is part of that whole. Inclusion does not require conformity or assimilation but rather assumes a society which embraces diversity.

Second, inclusion is seen as a process rather than an outcome and is founded on principles and values. Uditsky (1993) proposes that there is a progression from integration to inclusion and the process of inclusion rests upon fundamental principles of membership, friendship, relationships and supports.

Notions of connections, relationships, valued roles, contributing and social networks are all part of the inclusion discourse. Such qualities, while inherently admirable and almost universally espoused, have proven to be more difficult to attain and sustain in reality across the chasms of different paradigms and values and across long periods of time. For example, in the two decades since de-institutionalization policies supported the closure of institutions and the establishment of community based care models, the full integration of people with disabilities remains an unrealized ideal.

It has been argued that the implementation of community inclusion needs a multilayered approach (Chenoweth 1997), one that embraces supporting individuals and families through services and developing communities' capacities to welcome and include people with disabilities. Northway (1997) points out that inclusion will require a much broader policy response; one which includes both disability specific as well as general s~cial policy strategies. It is acknowledged, however, that ?chie'?ng inc~usio!l will be problematic because it challenges the very way m which society IS structured and organized (Oliver 1996) and as it grows in popularity, it will become more ambiguous (Uditsky 1993).

Clapton (1999) suggests that inclusion itself is a flawed concept that implies, by its very binary nature, that when we have inclusion we also have exclusion. Clap ton argues that we need to explore notions of integrality if we are to have people with disabilities truly members of ordinary communities and groups. This concept of integrality can be considered alongside current powerful debates about social capital building as a framework for building community capacity and that while social capital has much to offer, it nevertheless suffers from its lack of consciousness about the inclusion/ exclusion dynamic.

In summary, therefore, inclusion has well-articulated principles and values and represents a policy agenda based on the social model of disability rather than the individual model. However, when we embark on the path of

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INCLUSION 61

practice-of what do we do and how do we do it-we are confronted with a yawning chasm between principles, policies, programme and lived experience for the person with a disability and often their family. There is a need for a better theory to inform practices of inclusion in community life. Such a theory needs to span the spaces between the individual, the family and society.

Social capital

In recent years, the concept of social capital from the work of Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1993, 2000) has been firmly placed on global and local public agendas. Social capital has been described variously as the raw material of society created from the 'myriad of everyday interactions between people' (Bullen and Onyx 1999: 3) and as the social fabric or glue that makes us human (Putnam 1993, Cox 1995). At a more practical level, it refers to the networks and norms that allow people to work together to resolve problems and achieve common goals (Stone 2000).

Social capital has gained currency in research and social policy for more than a decade (Wall et al. 1998, Healy and Hampshire 2002). It has been enthusiastically commandeered by governments seeking to fmd ways to develop stronger communities which will have the capacity and leadership to find local solutions to local problems. The overarching aim is to develop such community capacity so that the resultant stronger communities can support weaker individuals and families and that strong families will support weaker communities (Stone 2000).

Social capital can be understood as one of the different forms of capital (Bourdieu 1986, Coleman 1988):

• Economic capital including financial resources such as income, money or loans.

• Physical capital including buildings, housing, roads and machines. • Human capital that refers to the knowledge and skills acquired by an

individual. • Cultural capital that refers to the knowledge, skills, forms of

expression that are culturally valued and distinguish some groups from others.

However, social capital has undergone several metamorphoses since its inception over 20 years ago. It was first introduced by Coleman (1988) to describe the networks, ties and relationships established between individuals in the context of wider social systems. His work was directed at bringing together the individualist and sociological traditions and he argued that social capital was a concept by which these two traditions could be synthesized (Midgely and Uvermore 1998).

Bourdieu (1986) used the term to refer to the advantages and opportunities that came to people through membership of various commu- nities and groups. Bourdieu saw social capital as a resource that accrued to an individual and later defined it as:

62 LESLEY CHI!NOWI!TH AND DANII!LA STI!HUK

the sum of all resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992)

The more recent popularization of social capital is largely due to Putnam's (1993) work in Northern Italian communities in the early 1990s. Putnam argued that communities with high levels of civic engage- ment also recorded higher levels of economic growth. Later, in his popular best seller Bowling Alone (2000), Putnam further argued that social capital in America was declining as people no longer joined voluntary associations. As a result, Putnam's work has shifted the focus of social capital from a characteristic of the individual to something that is the property of groups or even nations (Portes and Landolt 1996). It is this model of social capital that has been taken up by governments of all political persuasions. The approach enabled a synthesis with the self-help, conservative economic approach favoured in the past decade, as well as linking to the larger ideological stand of 'enabling people with disabilities to live in their own homes, cared for by their own families'.

While there is a growing literature on social capital and its application to various fields of theory and practice, several themes have been identified (Bullen and Onyx 1999) for the general population. These form the key elements of social capital and are briefly discussed below, with examples of how these elements should operate for people with dis- abilities and their families.

Participation

One of the key concepts in social capital is the participation in vario~s networks through family and friends, neighbourhoods and work. Social capital is generated through these networks and associations. This partici- patory approach would suggest that people with disabilities and their families become involved in naturally occurring networks within their own communities. In fact, as we discuss further below, our research has found that isolation from such networks is more often than not the powerful experience of vulnerable people.

Reciprocity

Bullen and Onyx (1999) suggest that social capital is about the exchange ~f resources or supports or services between people. It is not based on the 'Immediate return' requirement that is inherent in the business contract but rather on the notion that people provide a support to others based on a general expectation that someone will return the favour at some time in the future. Again, our recent research has found that such reciprocity is less likely when the person has a disability, or the family is caring for a person with a disability.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INCLUSION 63

Trust

All discussions of social capital refer to trust-that people will act in mutually supportive ways and do no harm to each other. The principle of reciprocity rests on this basic requirement of trust. For many of the people that we have met in our research, their difference tends to alienate people. Their 'naturally occurring networks' based on trust are largely limited to their immediate family members or to paid professionals.

Social norms

Social capital is said to be related to the upholding of social norms. This is one of the most powerful determinants of difference. Social norms within society established what it is to be 'normal' and to be a member of the 'inner core' of that society. To have a disability, to be mentally ill or infirm, means that one of the most powerful norms is challenged. It becomes extra- ordinarily difficult for an individual to overcome such norms and establish their capacity within a community.

Common resources

Bullen and Onyx (1999) suggest that all the factors above create communities with a strong sense of and commitment to shared ownership of resources. These are pooled resources owned by the community separate individuals. Such resources are 'tapped into' by competent individuals and community leadership enables an equitable redistribution of such resources. However, such resources are reliant on some form of 'giving back'. It becomes difficult continually to draw on them, without being able to replenish them.

Proactivity

Social capital constructs the citizen as a creator, rather than a consumer of resources. This makes establishes its fundamental difference to, for example, the human services where people are in receipt of services. Social capital is predicated on having community members who are proactive, engaged and active participants solving not only current but potential problems. Such proactivity is largely denied to people with disabilities and their families.

Tolerance of diversity

This important and fundamental aspect is somewhat contested. Critics argue that social capital promotes inclusion of only those who 'fit in'. Putnam (2000) argues that there is a connection between high social capital and tolerance of diversity and that America is a more tolerant society now

64 LESLEY CHENOWETH AND DI\NIELA STEHUK

than it was in the 1950s. Such a broad statement, which tends to elide the growth of homelessness, of poverty and of class and race differential in all Western industrialized nations, demonstrates the need to more carefully research the impact of capitalism, and to deconstruct some of the discourses surrounding social capital.

Bonding, bridging and linking social capital

While largely concerned with the relationship between social capital and economic development, Woolcock and Narayan (2000) outline a summary of social capital that we believe is useful for practice. They outline three forms of social capital: bonding, bridging and linking. First, bonding social capital refers to those horizontal ties within a community such as relationships between families, friends and individuals. Such ties give people a strong sense of identity, purpose, common understanding and mutual support. Second, bridging social capital refers to those links which are made across socio-economic, religious, cultural or gender social divides such as formal and informal links beyond one's personal networks to other formal and informal resources. Finally, linking social capital comes from alliances between individuals and communities with persons in positions of power such as politicians or the chief executive officers of business corporations or community organizations. Through connections with such individuals, people can have direct access to others with the power to make decisions.

We would argue that to ensure robust and sustainable communities, it would appear that all three forms of social capital are needed, and for those individuals who are the most vulnerable in our communities, policies and practice need to be founded on the fundamental principle that not every individual can simply 'switch onto' social capital building. The three forms-bonding, bridging and linking-are all predicated on action b_Y others. In other words, social capital does not emerge fully formed, It actually requires action by others to enable it to be accessed by all.

Critiques of social capital

There are a number of legitimate criticisms of social capital. First, social capital has been revamped from its original meaning as intended by Coleman to link individuals with social systems and Bourdieu to explain how some people got access to privileged and powerful positions because of their social connections (Portes and Landolt 1996). Both Coleman and Bourdieu envisaged social capital as a resource of the individual-although neither Coleman nor Bourdieu considered those most vulnerable in society. Putnam (1993) turned social capital into a resource that is held by groups for the benefit of society as a whole. In short, social capital was proposed as an answer to social problems. It has become a commodity that communities need to have. As stated above, it is this transformed 'panacea' version that so appeals to governments and those who develop social policy.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INCLUSION 65

Much of the discussion on social capital also does not adequately address the 'dark side' of some social networks. Not all social groups are sustaining in the long term, e.g. members of gangs engaged in criminal activity may be strong on bonding ties but not give any credence to the need for bridging ties into other social networks. Some rural communities are similarly strongly bonding but this can be a stifling experience for some members of that community or impenetrable for newcomers trying to 'fit in'.

The very interactions that form the substance of social capital are also increasingly harder to sustain in a society where the very standards of success (and therefore being included) are rising and where there is an increasing expectation that we should all be able to look after ourselves. The ethos of 'looking after number one' or the self-help model discussed above, produces a more inward looking populous (Everingham 2001) rather than one prepared to support each other.

Local area coordination

This section outlines the research conducted, its methodology and purpose. Local Area Coordination is a new model of service delivery, established in Western Australia in the early 1990s, and most recently in Queensland and New South Wales. This study, as part of two larger projects, involved people with disabilities and families who were in contact with Local Area Coordination services in Queensland and New South Wales.

In depth semistructured interviews with individuals with disabilities or a family member were carried out in people's homes in five regional and rural communities in the State of Queensland, Australia, and five regional and rural and one metropolitan community in New South Wales. All interviews were conducted between 1999 and 2002. The majority of participants lived in provincial centres, small towns or on farms or properties. A small number (six) lived in metropolitan suburban settings.

Eighty-six interviews were completed and covered the experiences of living in the community and the range of family friends and formal relationships. People were also asked what they thought their community was like in terms of its attitudes to people with disabilities generally. In addition, 71 of those interviewed also completed social network maps (Tracy and Whittaker 1990) as part of the interview. The maps recorded the number and type of social contacts and relationships and the degree of closeness to the person with a disability. In the case of children or those unable to complete it for themselves, a close family member completed the map on their behalf. The maps recorded relationships with close and extended family, friends, acquaintances and the services and agencies involved in the person's life. These included generic services such as health care, transport, education as well as disability specific services such as accommodation support, respite or early intervention and therapy. Inter- views were transcribed, coded and analysed using the computer software package, Ethnograph. Themes were generated from these data and recorded. Detailed findings and generalized analysis from the social network maps are reported elsewhere and are not presented here.

66 l.ESl.EY CHENOWBTH AND DANIF.LA STEHUK

Implications for people with disabilities and their families

Several issues arise when considering the ways in which social capital theory and ideas might be applied to the experiences of people with disabilities and families. We identified five themes from our findings relevant to social capital.

Few resources to invest in social capital building

First, social capital would appear to be predicated on people having sufficient economic and emotional resources to allow a person to participate in networks. People who do not have secure economic and family situations or who are facing a crisis of some sort are often internally focussed on the task of survival with no 'surplus' resources to contribute to the building of social capital. Paradoxically, these individuals are clearly those who would benefit from being a member of a community with high social capital. The individuals and families in our study were often fully occupied with tasks associated with living with a disability. For example, people were fighting for in-home support funding, or negotiating for their child to attend the local school or having to attend numerous health appointments-sometimes travelling long distances to do so. Some parents were also occupied in hands-on carer roles bathing, feeding and attending to the daily needs of their child or family member.

For some people, involvement with internally focussed tasks of living and survival were episodic, for example in cases where the person has a mental illness or multiple sclerosis. For others, resources were fully utilized at various critical periods or transitional life stages as in the case of one family who found they were fully occupied with finding a school that would accept their child. Another example was that of a family whose child with spina bifida had to undergo renal surgery which required one parent to stay at the hospital many hundreds of kilometres away. However, for many families with a member who has a disability, their emotional and financial resources were stretched most of the time. As one mother of three children, one of whom had severe physical and intellectual disabilities, put it:

I would dearly love to be involved in the soccer club where my other son plays. He misses out a lot you know. Just to go to see him practice one afternoon a week would mean a lot. But who can I get to take care ofJ?There's no-one who can do that. I can't just leave him. I am 80 tired just doing all that physical work too. .

Social isolation

There is significant evidence to show that many individuals with disability and their families are socially isolated (Gething 1997, Kitchin 1998, Kerr and Mclntosh 1999).

Our study also found that people were socially isolated from both family ~n~ o~er social contacts. Given the nature of this sample with many people hvmg m regional and rural areas, some of this isolation may be explained

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INCLUSION 67

through geographical factors. However, many people expressed the view that they did not feel part of or even welcomed in the local community. Our research found that this was true for those families who had lived in the area for a long time, as it was for those who had come to the community more recently. Poignantly, one family, where the adult son was living with an acquired brain injury, and whose mother and father had been born in the town, were experiencing powerful rejection from a community that previously, they had thought of as inclusive and accepting.

Many people with disabilities and their families have a greatly reduced capacity to form networks. If reciprocity is a central tenet of social capital then the capacity of some families to contribute will diminish as they focus on internal tasks of everyday living, supporting their family member with physical and daily living needs As one parent described: 'I was just so tired. I was just burnt out completely with looking after her'. This means that they are therefore not able to build those networks that may be able to provide some support when needed. This sets up a cycle of rejection where the demands of disability reduce the capacity to invest in social networks and therefore leads to social isolation. Being socially isolated means there is very limited access to external supports consequently, individuals increasingly rely on internal resources (from within their own family) to meet those needs.

Reality of rejection

While communities may be high in social capital, they may also exclude people with disabilities as different from other community members. Sometimes this exclusion takes a violent form. Our research highlighted the reality of rejection of many people who spoke of their experiences of bullying, exclusion and violence. One family moved their child with a disability from the local school because he was repeatedly bullied by other children. The school's response was to send him home to avoid further buJlying thereby excluding him from school. Another woman with physical disabilities who had her own small office services business found she could not 'break into' the business community because she was not known to the business leaders and her efforts to make contact with them had failed. Another man with a psychiatric illness and an intellectual disability and living in a small country town was beaten up and robbed of cigarettes twice in his local park. He was admitted to hospital for surgery to his shoulder, which is now seriously impaired. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this rejection is the potential for violence against the person with a disability that is so often present.

Invisible volumary contributions

One of the key elements of social capital is the voluntary contribution to community and civil society. Our research over many years has underlined the important fact that many people with disabilities and parents of people

68 LESLEY CHENOWBTH AND DANIELA STEHUK

with disabilities do make significant voluntary contributions to our society on a continuing and regular basis. This occurs on two levels. First, people contribute more formally as members of groups or committees such as boards of disability service organizations, advocacy groups, advisory committees to government or lobby groups for better services. Many people reported that they had been a broad member of a local service for several years, or had participated in other committees for government. Second, parents and family members also contribute less formally, though sub- stantially in terms of efforts, through the unpaid caring work they perform daily and for many years. For example, a mother of a man of 35 years of age with Down's syndrome, explained how she had never had any support from any service or agency after she was asked to keep her son at home from school after 3 weeks in the first grade nearly 30 years ago. Over those years, she has cared for him, given him an education (albeit rudimentary) and prepared him for adult life in the small town where they live without ever having any respite or formal service assistance.

We argue that much of this voluntary contribution is invisible to the wider community yet clearly represents significant contributions made by people with disabilities and families to their communities. Who sees this caring contribution or notices the impact that it has for the wider community? Much of it is undertaken 'behind closed doors', and the energy it requires leaves little capacity for other, more public, activity. There is another question underpinning this phenomenon. Are some voluntary contributions are more valued than others and therefore seen to more actively contribute to social capital building? Hampshire and Healy (2000), in a study of social capital involving a non-profit organization, argue that social capital contributions of non-profits are undervalued. We argue that this is even more pronounced where the contribution is at an individual level.

We would suggest that our research shows that perhaps the issue of reciprocity requires that the contribution needs to have immediate and recognizable benefits to the contributor and in the case of vulnerable people, such immediate reciprocity becomes difficult to maintain.

Bonding social capital of disability groups

Our findings suggest that some people with disabilities and families do have links with other individuals and families and that the resultant networks are supportive. This was also reported by Clear (1999) in his study of experiences of families with a child with a disability. He found that families were more supportive of and connected to other families with children with disabilities than to others in the general community. Our research involved a number of parents who were members of State-wide parent advocacy organizations or who were connected to other parents through local lobbying or self-help efforts. We also interviewed some people with disabilities who similarly chose to form informal groups or friendships, or who were members of self-help groups. People reported that these social contacts were 'easier' because there was less risk of rejection and that the

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INCLUSION 69

other person 'knew what it was like'. The energy associated with dealing with potential rejection by 'normal' groups could then be used more effectively.

Such networks appear to be high on bonding social capital but weak on bridging social capital. For inclusion to happen it is apparent that all types of social capital are necessary.

Bonding social capital was valued by the people we met who reported that they had some social contacts in an accepting environment. However, they did not feel they could call on such people for assistance or support because they were acutely aware of the caring efforts that they were engaged in. In needs to be pointed out that true inclusion is about the participation in ordinary and general social networks not segregated ones. We are certainly not advocating a separation model here-quite the contrary.

Elsewhere, we have written of the important role of the human service practitioner in building the bonding social capital capacity of individuals and their families (Chenoweth and Stehlik 2001). Note that here there is some early evidence that governments, more recently, have become aware of the importance to support social capital building while taking note of the need for inclusion. The Local Area Coordination model was estab- lished, in part, to deal with this paradox-time will tell whether it will achieve this goal.

Some conclusions

In the integration of inclusion with social capital building, our research has identified some obvious fragility in the current established model. At present, social capital remains unrealized for vulnerable people who are different. We believe there are potential benefits in working towards establishing an inclusive model of social capital building. However, such a model would need to take into account a number of concerns and issues.

First, social capital frameworks may have something to offer the inclusion movement but we should be cautious as to its potential. Over the past 30 years, the disability movement has enthusiastically embraced many 'fads' that have become viewed as quick fixes to eradicate exclusion or rejection. Social capital may be in danger of being regarded as just another trend that will not deliver enduring positive outcomes for people with disabilities and their families.

Second, that the disability movement has much to offer to social capital theory and practice. People with disability and families are part of a large number of people viewed as different or Other from the mainstream of society. Much of social capital scholarship has hitherto paid little attention to the relationship between difference and social capital and the question of whether or not one can access or build social capital as long as one is a member of the in-group and not Other. The experiences of people with disability may shed light on these issues. Additionally, the voluntary contributions of people with disabilities and families that are unrecognized or undervalued also pose questions about the comprehensiveness of current social capital theorizing.

70 l.ESLEY CHENOWETH AND DANIELA STEHUK

Third, social capital should not be considered as a panacea for social problems across all communities. We believe that there is a danger in promoting social capital per se as a policy and programmes solution to social problems. Social capital is useful, however, in developing a shared understanding of complex processes within groups, organizations and communities, and can be an important tool for practice that seeks to promote community engagement (Hampshire and Healy 2000).

Importantly, the tolerance of diversity needs to be supported in any social capital framework. We suggest that any theoretical framework addressing inclusion must address, at the most fundamental level, the experiences of people with disabilities and families. Social capital has potential for informing policy and practice on community building, social networks and community participation: all areas integral to inclusion.

To make social capital frameworks more relevant for the disability sector further work is needed on diversity and difference. Creating sustainable communities demands the acceptance of diversity and difference. A community cannot be sustainable unless it incorporates all of its citizens. There is also an inherent contradiction in social capital and values of individualism and self-responsibility. This raises a question about whether a self-help model can actually build community.

Our practice on behalf of people with disabilities and their families requires us to consider both individual and community strategies. We need to think holistically, and as a concept, social capital can establish an integrated whole. The bonding, bridging and linking social capital approa- ches need to be integrated for inclusion to work. We should focus on all three aspects, not just choose the easy option.

This is particularly relevant for those involved in inclusive education. The local school is a rich site for the development of social networks for children with disabilities and their families, i.e. a source of social capital. There is also potential for social capital generation through the inclusion of adults with disabilities in other educational processes such as technical colleges, adult education courses and community-based life-long learning programmes. We acknowledge that it requires more than mere presence in such community situations to foster the development of real relationships for people with disabilities and that the building of bonds, bridges and links requires additional supports. Facilitating such supports is often a challenge for teachers, parents, children and community members and frameworks which will assist us to develop further our understanding of the complexities of inclusion and how to support it are much needed. Social capital may provide such an integrative framework.

Social capital has received little attention within the disability movement just as social capital thinking has not incorporated the perspectives and experiences of people with disabilities and their families. We believe there is potential in social capital theory and practice especially in its application to ~ommunity building and family life. Social capital has alread~ been ~se~ to mform policy and programmes in many areas and arenas and 1ts apphcauon is expanding rapidly. It has appeal in that it is a concept that can be quickly grasped and understood by practitioners, policy-makers, people with disabilities, families and ordinary members of the community. Social capital

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INCLUSION 71

may provide one way of integrating the individual, family and community levels of intervention that is essential if inclusion is to become a reality.

This provides an exciting opportunity for those involved in inclusion efforts to develop knowledge about how social capital works and how we can achieve positive outcomes for people with disabilities, their families and the communities in which they live.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York: Greenwood), 241-258.

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L ]. D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Bradley, V., Ashbaugh, J. and Blaney, B. (eds) (1994) Creating Individual Supports for People with Developmental Disabilities (Baltimore: Brookes).

Bullen, P. and Onyx, J. (1999) Social Capital: Family Support Services and Neighbourhood and Community Centres in NSW (Sydney: Family Support Services Association of NSW).

Chenoweth, L (1997) Is there a community for us? Deinstitutionalisation policies in Queensland. In R. Adarns (ed.), Crisis in the Human Services: National and International Issues. Selected papers from a conference held at the University of Cambridge, September 1996 (Kingston Upon Hull: University of Lincolnshire and Humberside).

Chenoweth, L and Stehlik, D. (2001) Building resilient communities: social work practice in rural Queensland. Ausrralian Social WOrk, 54, 57-61.

Clapton, ]. (1999) A transformatory ethic of inclusion: rupturing 'disability' and 'inclusion' for integrality. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Queensland University ofTechnology, Brisbane.

Clear, M. (1999) Caring culture and the politics of parent/professional relations. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 34, 119-132.

Coleman, ]. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supp1.), S95-Sl20.

Cox, E. (1995) A Truly Civil Society, 1995 Boyer Lectures (Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Cominission).

Everingham, C. (2001} Reconstituting community: social justice, social order and the politics of community. Ausrralian Journal of Social Issues, 36, 105-122.

Gething L (1997) Sources of double disadvantage for people with disabilities living in remote and rural areas of New South Wales, Australia. Disability and Society, 12, 513-531.

Hampshire, A. and Healy, K. (2000) Social capital in practice. Paper presented at the Family Futures: Issues in Research and Policy, 7th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Sydney, 24-26 July 2000.

Healy, K. and Hampshire, A. (2002} Social capital: a useful concept for social work? Australian Social WOrk, SS, 227-238.

Kerr, D. and Mclntosh, J. (2000) Coping when a child has a disability impact of parent-to-parent support. Child-care Health and Development, 26, 309-322.

Kitchen, R. ( 1998) 'Out of place. Knowing one's place': space, power and the exclusion of disabled people. Disability and Society, 13, 343-356.

Midgely, J. and Livermore, M. ( 1998) Social capital and local economic development: implications for community social work practice. Journal of Community Practice, 5, 29-40.

Northway, R. (1997) Integration and inclusion: illusion or progress in services for disabled people? Social Policy and Administration, 31, 157-172.

Oliver, M. (1996) Undentanding Disability: From Theory to Practice (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Oliver, M. and Bames, C. (1998} Disabled People and Social Policy: From Exclusion to Inclusion (London:

Longman}. Pones, A. and Landolt, P. (1996) The downside of social capital. American Prospect, 26, 18-23. Pretty, G., Rapley, M. and Bramston, P. (2002) Neighbourhood and community experience, and the

quality of life of rural adolescents with and without intellectual disability. Journal of InteUectual and Dew/opmental Disability, 27, 106-116.

72 LESLEY CHENOWETH AND DAN!EI..A STEHUK

Putnam, R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of Civic America (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Putnam, R with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. Y. (1993) Making Democracy tfbrk: Civic Tradicions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Slee, R. (2001) Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: the case of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, S, 167-177.

Stone, W. (2000) Social capital, social cohesion and social security. Paper presented at the Year 2000 International Research Conference on Social Security, 25-27 September, Helsinki.

Swain, ]. and Cook, T. (200 1) In the name of inclusion: 'We all, at the end of the day, have the needs of the children at heart'. Critical Social Policy, 21, 185-207.

Tracy, E. and Whittaker,]. (1990) The social network map: assessing social support in clinical practice. Families in Sociery: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 71, 461-470.

Uditsky, B. (1993) From integration to inclusion: the Canadian experience. In R. Slee (ed.), Is There A Desk With My Name On It? (London: Falmer).

Wall, E., Ferrazzi, G. and Schyer, F. (1998) Getting the goods on social capital. Rural Sociology, 63, 300-322.

Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2000) Social capital: implications for development theory, research and policy. World Bank Research ObsertJer, 1S, 225-249.