Social inclusion and ASD 13Social inclusion
Yet, the term social inclusion is a nebulous one. Many studies use similar terms
to describe the same idea. ‘Social integration’, ‘social participation’ and ‘social
inclusion’ are often used interchangeably to describe the same concept. In 2009,
Koster, Nakken, Jan Pijl and van Houten undertook a review of the literature
published between 2000 and 2005 that focused on the social dimension of inclu-
sion in education. Implementation of selection criteria (i.e. empirical research or
literature review, published in international journals, aimed at pupils with special
needs in elementary or preschool and focused on the social dimension of inclusion)
returned 62 studies for examination. Following analysis, the authors found three
distinct terminologies, or umbrella terms used to describe the social dimension of
inclusion: social integration, social inclusion and social participation. Their review
addressed these three concepts in turn, detailing the explicit and implicit definitions
that emerged from the literature.
Of the 62 articles included in their examination, only six studies used the term
social inclusion. Yet, no explicit definition of the term was stated in any study;
only implicit definitions were alluded to. In the absence of an explicit definition
of social inclusion, Koster et al. (2009) described several common aspects reported
across these six studies: friendship, acceptance, interaction, relationships, social status
and bullying. The authors determined “the concept of social integration and its
related concepts, social inclusion and social participation, hardly seem to differ in
practice with respect to content, if at all” (p. 131). They claimed these three terms
were used interchangeably within the literature and were ascribed similar mean-
ings. Thus, they concluded that social participation should be used to refer to the
social dimension of inclusion. Social inclusion was rejected as a concept term as
“inclusion is an extensive concept which logically embraces the social dimension”
(p. 134).
Bossaert, Coplin, Jan Pijl and Petry (2013) closely replicated the Koster et al.
(2009) study, using literature from 2000–2008, with the intent of clarifying the
three concept terms describing the social dimension of inclusion in the secondary
education setting. Bossaert et al. sought to ascertain any parallels or differences
between their study and the previous review. Using the same sources and selection
criteria, Bossaert et al. selected 19 articles for use in their examination.
Once again results found social integration was the term most frequently used
in the research literature. Unlike Koster et al. (2009), Bossaert and colleagues (2013)
reported five of the seven articles that used the term social inclusion provided an
explicit definition of the term. Using narrative description Bossaert et al. identified
key themes central to each study’s definition. These themes closely mirrored those
of the previous study and included: peer acceptance, bullying, friendships and social
isolation. The authors concluded their findings closely paralleled those obtained
by Koster et al., thus confirming that terms such as social integration, social inclu-
sion and social participation are used interchangeably in the research literature and
assigned similar meanings.