ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 56

Inclusive education and the cultural

representation of disability and Disabled
people: recipe for disaster or catalyst of
change?
An examination of non-disabled primary school
children’s attitudes to children with disabilities

Alan Hodkinson University of Chester

Research in Education No. 77

The election of New Labour in 1997, under the banner of ‘Education, Edu-
cation, Education’, heralded an evolution of inclusive practices within
schools and early years settings (Hodkinson, 2005). The beginning of the
twenty-first century has witnessed the evolution of inclusive education being
supported by a raft of governmental policies, initiatives and legislation, not
least the Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disability Act, which have
ostensibly strived to make inclusion the norm within the English educational
system (Hodkinson, 2006). Most recently, the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES) has outlined the government’s strategy for special educa-
tional needs (DfES, 2004) and it is apparent that current policy is to be dom-
inated by the principle of inclusion. This development of governmental
inclusion policy has led to a wide-ranging debate, among professionals within
the United Kingdom, as to the relative educational and social merit of ‘main-
streaming’ children with special educational needs and disabilities. However,
it seems very apparent that current educational policy is to be dominated by
the belief that ‘All children wherever they are educated need to be able to
learn, play and develop alongside each other, within their local community
of schools’ (DfES, 2004, p. 21).
It would seem that, unlike previous governmental policies of integration,
the present government believes that inclusion relates not only to the loca-
tion of children with special educational needs within the mainstream, but
also to the ‘quality of their experience and how far they are helped to learn,
achieve and participate fully in the life of the school’ (DfES, 2004, p. 12). For
this government a key success target for inclusive education is that parents of
children with special educational needs and disabilities will have the confi-
dence that ‘in choosing a local mainstream school, their child will receive a
good education and be a valued member of the school community’ (DfES,
2004, p. 13). Interestingly, whilst the government rightly outlines that it
wants to improve teachers’ skills and the multi-agency partnerships, with
which to work with children with special educational needs and disabilities,
56 its strategy seemingly fails to appreciate the important effect that the attitudes
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 57

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

of non-disabled children within mainstream schools may have on the success,
or otherwise, of inclusive education.
Problematic, I would suggest, is that the government’s inclusion strategy
document (DfES, 2004) seemingly indicates they believe that the simple
placement of children with disabilities into mainstream schools, coupled with
successful learning experiences, will lead to non-disabled children’s attitudes
to disability becoming more positive. This humanitarian premise, that includ-
ing Disabled pupils in a mainstreamed educational setting will lead to greater
acceptance of pupils with special needs, is one that has gained international
support (Spaling, 2002). Paradoxically, however, it is also argued that the
premise is based upon an ‘idealistic assumption’ and in reality it is under-
mined because pupils with disabilities are often ‘socially ostracised’ (Spaling,
2002, p. 91) within school communities. In terms of the development of
effective inclusive education, therefore, it would seem important to examine
extant disability attitudes within schools (Upton and Harper, 2000).
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to explore and critically analyse
the attitudes of non-disabled children towards the inclusion of children with
disabilities within the locality of their classrooms. The article argues that, if
mainstream schools are to provide a fertile breeding ground for the embed-
ding of inclusive practices, the cultural representation and attitudes of non-
disabled children towards Disabled people and disability need to be carefully
considered.

The formulation of societal attitudes towards disability

Oppenheim (1992, p. 174) denotes that an attitude is ‘a state of readiness, a
tendency, to respond in a certain manner when confronted with a certain
stimuli’. The following component of the article briefly defines how disabil-
ity has been conceptualised within society before exploring the stimuli that
might have served to influence the formulation of societal attitudes towards
disability and Disabled people. An article such as this, though, cannot hope
to provide a comprehensive definition of the concept of disability, nor can it
provide a substantive account of how it is operationalised within British
society. Nevertheless, it would seem important that the article provides some
defining characteristics of the concept of disability so that a critical analysis
of the research participants’ attitudes towards disability and Disabled people
may be countenanced. From a necessarily brief examination of the literature
base, then, it seems evident that no single concept of disability has ascendancy
within British society – indeed, there appear to be a number of differing and
conflicting definitions (Michailakis, 2003).

Models of disability
The traditional concept of disability, the one that appears to have been at the
forefront of educational, charitable and medical thinking during the
twentieth century (Barnes and Mercer, 2003), is colloquially referred to as 57
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 58

Research in Education No. 77

the ‘medical model’. The central tenet of this model is that ‘disability is con-
sidered to be an effect on bodily function arising from an impairment’ (John-
stone, 2001, p. 10). Therefore, Disabled people within this model are
identified ‘as those individuals with physical, sensory and cognitive impair-
ment’ who are considered to be ‘less than whole’ (Dartington et al., 1981,
cited in Barnes and Mercer, 2003, p. 2). Whilst the medical model is interest-
ing, many writers argue that it ‘reduces the importance of political, economic
and social factors’ (Michailakis, 2003, p. 209). Moreover, it is contended by
‘looking through the sociological lens, disability is the product not of isolated
individual pathologies’ (Garth and Aroni, 2003, p. 56) but of restrictive soci-
etal structures. There is support, within the literature base, that the so called
‘social model’ more correctly describes how disability should be opera-
tionalised within society. Johnstone (2001, p. 20) accounts the social model
of disability:
• recognises the interaction of structural and attitudinal variables that cre-
ate disability in society;
• recognises the voice/ opinion of the disabled person;
• acknowledges the political processes which oppress and deny civil rights
to disabled people; and,
• begins to put power/ information within the control of disabled people
and their organisations.
From this perspective, disability is not a ‘personal tragedy’ created by soci-
etal structures and attitudes, because ‘there is no causality between impair-
ments (biology organism) and “handicap” but on the contrary that
“handicap” is a particular form of discrimination and that discrimination has
social origins’ (Michailakis, 2003, p. 343).
In more recent times, however, the social model has been criticised as being
‘atheoretical’ (Johnstone, 2001, p. 20) and in the latter part of the twentieth
century other models of disability, such as the affirmative and rights-based
models, have been elucidated. Whilst there is not time, here, to fully evalu-
ate these models it does appear that since the 1960s there has been a sub-
stantial reconceptualisation of disability and impairment. This
reconceptualisation strongly suggests disability is not solely located within
the individual but ‘economy, governmental policy, state authorities and insti-
tutions (e.g. educational systems) are key factors in the formation of struc-
tures that oppress disabled people on a daily basis’ (Michailakis, 2003, p.
211).

Children’s attitudes to, and conceptualisation of, disability

The second component of the article, now, turns to a specific examination of
previous researches into children’s conceptualisation of, and attitudes
towards, disability. The aim of this component of the article is to assess
whether generic societal attitudes have the potential to be transferred to indi-
58 vidual children. Problematically, this examination is constrained by a
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 59

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

research base which is small and referenced mainly to specific intellectual dis-
abilities. Prudence dictates that care should be exercised in the extrapolation
of these data, as they are unclear whether the findings, from the era of seg-
regation and integration, are readily transferable to children in National Cur-
riculum classrooms
Within the literature base it is determined that educational establishments
are dominated by a belief system formulated upon the notion of the ‘“nor-
mally” developing child’ (Holt, 2004, p. 3). Furthermore, it is contended that
a stimulus for the development of children’s attitudes towards disability and
Disabled people centres upon interaction with parents and older siblings
(Deal, 2003). A review of this literature suggests attitudes developed within
the locus of the home are transferred and mediated through the powerful
socialising influence schools have upon children. Shakespeare (1994, p. 294)
maintains the catalyst for this mediation lies in ‘playful interaction’ such as
telling jokes, singing songs and participating in games. Through this process
of mediation children agree a ‘commonly held set of norms for the physical
body’ (Shakespeare, 1994, p. 294) by which they construct an attitude and a
belief system to draw upon when interacting with others they see as differ-
ent from themselves (Lenney and Sercombe, 2002). As Bandura (1986, cited
in Bunch and Valeo, 2004, p. 62) accounts, ‘many behaviours are learned
quickly through observation and imitation of others’. Problematic to the suc-
cessful implementation of inclusive education, then, is that it would seem
Disabled people ‘are often at the mercy of the others’ construction of what
it means to have a disability’ (Lenney and Sercombe, 2002, p. 6).
A review of the literature, in relation to non-disabled children’s conceptu-
alisation of disability and Disabled people, notes a ‘confusing and contradic-
tory set of findings’ (Gottlieb, 1975, in Gottlieb and Switzby, 1982, p. 596).
Firstly, a number of studies (for example, Harasymiw et al., 1976, Jacques et
al., 1998, Siperstein and Gottlieb, 1977; Townsend et al., 1993) have indi-
cated schoolchildren, especially females (Siperstein and Gottlieb, 1997), have
a positive attitude towards disability and that children generally have a more
positive attitude than do adults (Townsend et al., 1993). However, one must
exercise caution in the transferability of these findings to children in main-
stream schools in England, as the data appear to be based upon a number of
important caveats. For instance, whilst Jacques et al. (1998) found positive
attitudes towards Disabled children these were based upon the implementa-
tion of co-operative learning programmes which are not generally available
in England. Despite this limitation, it is pertinent to note that Jacques et al.
(1998, p. 30) contend there is a substantial body of evidence which suggests
‘significant gains’ in the social acceptance of children with sensory, physical
or learning disabilities can be facilitated by the establishment of such pro-
grammes. A further caveat to the maintenance of positive attitudes seems to
be based upon what is termed the ‘hierarchy of disability’. The findings of
substantial research by Harasymiw et al. (1976) and, to a lesser extent, those
of Townsend et al. (1993) and Richardson and Ronald (1977) suggest that,
generally, positive attitudes exist for children with disabilities who conform 59
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 60

Research in Education No. 77

most closely to the ‘norms set by society’ (Deal, 2003, p. 899). Problemati-
cally, though, Deal (2003, p. 899) contends these positive attitudes are a
‘phenomenon that only last for a brief time’.
Perhaps the greatest undermining force to the substantiation of these pos-
itive attitudinal findings is that the literature base is dominated by a body of
research evidence which indicates negative attitudes towards Disabled chil-
dren are common within mainstream classrooms. Research during the last
thirty years suggests children with disabilities who are placed into main-
stream educational settings are at considerable risk of increased levels of bul-
lying and teasing (Martlew and Hodson, 1991; Gray, 2002), lower
sociometric positioning in class (Sipestein and Lettert, 1997; Jacques et al.,
1998; Zic and Igri, 2001) and experience social distancing (Nazo and Nikoli,
1991; Weiserbs and Gottlieb, 2000; Zic and Igri, 2001; Guralnick 2002).
Worryingly for both Disabled children and educators alike are the findings
from studies such as Weinberg (1978) which suggest negative attitudes
towards disability develop early, with children as young as 4 preferring able-
bodied individuals in comparison with Disabled ones (Gottlieb and Switzby,
1982).
At one level, then, the literature base appears to indicate the ‘social isola-
tion and stigma attached to children with disabilities has been thoroughly
documented’ (Weiserbs and Gottlieb, 2000, p. 343). However, as with the
positive attitudinal research studies outlined above, one should view this vista
of research with caution. Not least, because the majority of the studies out-
lined have been located within an international context and others relate
solely to intellectual disabilities. Additionally, these negative attitudinal find-
ings should be tempered by the contention of Jackson (1983) that, whilst
people may express negative views, these do not always translate into action.
Furthermore, although the discovery of negative attitudes towards Disabled
peers is disturbing, it is interesting to note Davis and Watson (2001) con-
tending ‘that disabled children encounter discriminating notions of “nor-
mality” and difference both in “special” and mainstream schools (Davis and
Watson, 2001, p. 673). The evidence contained within the literature base
does not, it seems, provide a validated argument that undermines the premise
that all children can be successfully educated within a mainstream setting.

Summary
It seems apparent from the review of the literature base that research findings
in relation to non-disabled children’s attitudes and conceptualisation of dis-
ability remain unclear. Nevertheless, what these findings do suggest is that
attitudes, both societal and individual, may be an important catalyst to the
promotion of successful inclusive education. Based upon this finding an argu-
ment forwarded here is that the formulation of governmental policy, relating
to inclusion, must consider the views of all children if the process of breaking
down barriers to inclusive educational practice is to be effective. It would
60 appear, then, ‘as part of a process of on-going theory development’, that non-
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 61

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

disabled children’s attitudes should be researched, as it is only by ‘understand-
ing the mechanics of such a phenomena’ that we can hope to successfully chal-
lenge it and so provide effective inclusive education (Tregaskis, 2000, p. 344).

Research questions
The above review of the literature indicates that the effective implementation
of inclusive education may be dependent, among other things, upon how
non-disabled children conceptualise disability and Disabled children. Based
upon the findings of the literature review, the study developed five main
research questions. These questions sought to ascertain how non-disabled
children conceptualise disability, in general, and what attitudes they hold
towards children with physical disabilities. The questions were formulated to
examine the hypothesis, contained within the literature base, that acceptance
of pupils with disabilities within mainstream schools is dependent upon social
and cultural attitudes to disability, the nature of the pupil’s disability and the
social contact pupils have had with Disabled people. The main research ques-
tions were as follows:
1 How do non-disabled children conceptualise disability?
2 Do non-disabled children hold negative or positive attitudes towards
physically Disabled children?
3 Are gender differentials apparent in non-disabled children’s conceptuali-
sation of disability?
4 Is there a ‘hierarchy of disability’ in the minds of non-disabled children?
5 Do non-disabled children’s conceptualisation of, and attitudes towards,
disability vary in mainstream schools that have included Disabled chil-
dren as opposed to schools that have not?

Method
The research study
The research was conducted in the suburbs of a North West city. Two pri-
mary schools (henceforth to be known as school A and school B) were
selected to be the subject of the research study. The selection of these schools
was based upon the fact that they were of a similar size and demographic pro-
file. The significant difference between the two schools was that twelve
months before the commencement of the research school A had had a Special
school attached to it. Efforts had been made during this twelve-month period
to facilitate links between the Special school and school A within some
lessons, and combined playtimes, lunch breaks, assemblies and staff meetings.
Therefore the children in school A had significantly more opportunities to
interact with children with physical disabilities than the children in school B.
The research sought to analyse whether greater interaction between non-dis-
abled and Disabled pupils had any significant affect on non-disabled pupil
attitudes towards disability and Disabled people. 61
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 62

Research in Education No. 77

The population and samples

Population: two primary schools matched for size, location and demograph-
ics. Sample: one year 5 class from each school. Number of subjects: fifty-
three.

Data collection instruments

The data for the study were collected by the employment of a multidimen-
sional attitude measure. Firstly, to analyse the participants’ conceptualisation
of disability and Disabled people, the children were presented with a blank
piece of paper and asked to draw a picture of a Disabled child and write a
description of the child’s disability. Once this had been completed, the draw-
ings and descriptions were collected. Second, and with no prior sight, the
participants were shown two line drawings: one of a child who was a wheel-
chair user and another who was ‘able-bodied’. The participants were asked
to choose five words, from a word bank, to indicate their feelings towards
each child. The word box contained twelve ‘attitude’ words that were an
equal mix of positive and negative words. Whilst it is accepted that this com-
ponent of the research was problematic, in terms of the simplistic represen-
tation of disability, it seemed important for the research to gain some
understanding of children’s attitudes towards this portrayal of Disabled
people. Third, to analyse whether children conceptualised a hierarchy of dis-
ability, a similar research methodology to Richardson and Ronald (1977) was
employed. This method of data collection required participants to examine
four gender-specific line pictures. These pictures showed four children, one
who had a visual impairment, one who employed a walking frame, one who
was a wheelchair user and one who was ‘able-bodied’. The participants were
asked to indicate whether they would make friends with any of these chil-
dren should they become a member of their class. Whilst a number of pic-
tures which represented a range of disabilities might have been chosen, the
research confined itself to specific images of physical disability. The reason-
ing for the choice of the pictures was to enable an examination of extant
research findings, which suggest ‘invisible’ disabilities are less stigmatising
than visual ones and that sensory disabilities, such as visual and hearing
impairment, are less stigmatising than ones which impair mobility (Spaling,
2002). Finally, the children were asked a series of five questions that aimed
to elucidate some background detail in relation to the participants’ involve-
ment with Disabled people, disability issues and their understanding of cur-
rent governmental policy in this area. The questions asked were as follows:
1 Do you think children who use wheelchairs should be allowed in your
class?
2 What does ‘inclusion’ mean?
3 What does ‘Disabled’ mean?
4 Have you ever talked to a child who uses a wheelchair?
62
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 63

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

Data analysis
The quantitative data produced by the study were analysed by the employ-
ment of non-parametric statistical tests. The qualitative data were analysed
by the use of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Throughout the
research the factor of gender was subject to examination, as it has been sug-
gested by previous research that it has a relationship with attitudes towards
disability. Other factors, such as race, ethnicity and social class, were not
analysed, because the demographics of the schools did not allow a meaning-
ful examination to take place.

Results
Figures 1 and 2 offer an overview of non-disabled children’s responses to the
statement ‘Draw a picture of a Disabled person’. Tables 1 and 2 provide data
which illustrate how the participants in the study defined disability and
denote the attitude words they associated to disability. The data in these
tables are illustrated by the employment of the variables of school type and
the gender of the participant. Within Tables 3 and 4 the data illustrate the
participants’ employment of the attitude words when presented with pictor-
ial representations of Disabled and non-disabled children. The data compare

% 100

80
School A
School B
60

40

20

0
Wheelchair
Wheel chair Half
Halfan arm
arm Broken
Broken Blind
Blind Bedridden
Bed ridden Lonely
Lonely Lostleg
Lost leg Uses
Uses
user
user bones
bones crutches
crutches

Conceptualisation

Figure 1 Non-disabled children’s conceptualisation of disability 63

ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 64

%
Research in Education No. 77

Wheelchair Half an arm Broken Blind Bedridden Lonely Lost leg Uses
user bones crutches
Conceptualisation

Figure 2 Non-disabled children’s conceptualisation of disability

the significance of the participants’ responses by the employment of the vari-

able of gender alone in Table 3 and of school type and gender in Table 4. The
data represented in Tables 5 and 6 denote the participants’ reasons and
responses, by gender and school type, to the question ‘Should children who
use wheelchairs be allowed in your classroom?’ In addition, Table 7 indicates,
by school type and gender, the level of interaction the participants have had
with children who are wheelchair users. Finally, Table 8 offers data, by
school type, which provide an insight into which children with disabilities the
participants would be prepared to make friends with should the opportunity
arise.

Discussion
Children’s conceptualisation of disability
The data (see Figure 1) produced by non-disabled children in response to the
statement ‘Draw a Disabled child’ prove to be most interesting in that they
showed a significant majority of the participants portraying disability as refer-
ring to a person who employs a wheelchair. This finding offers confirmation
of those of Imerie and Kumar (1998), who recount that many children per-
ceive disability to be ‘synonymous with physical disability’ (Davies and Wat-
son, 2001, p. 12). Furthermore, albeit to a lesser extent, the analysis of the
drawings indicates that disability is associated with the breakage of bones.
64 Further examination denotes that the participants’ drawings indicate no
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 65

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

Table 1 What does ‘Disabled’ mean? (%)
School
A A A B B B A/B A/B A/B
Total Total Overall
Female Male Total Female Male Total female male total

Something wrong 38 30 34 33 20 26.5 35.5 25 30.3

with them/not well
Been in an accident 15 0 7.5 0 0 0 7.5 0 3.8
Cannot do something 23 10 16.5 11 20 15.5 17 15 16
as good as us
Somebody who needs
help 8 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 2
Cannot use their 15 30 22.5 22 30 26 18.5 30 24.3
feet/legs
Broken bones 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 10 5
Somebody in a 0 10 5 17 10 13.5 8.5 10 9.3
wheelchair
Blind 0 0 0 17 10 13.5 8.5 5 6.8
Weird and walks 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 5 2.5
funny

Table 2 Non-disabled children’s employment of attitude words

School
A A A B B B A/B A/B AVB
Non- Non- Non- Non- Non-
disabled Disabled disabled disabled disabled disabled
child child v. child Disabled v. child Disabled
total total disabled total child disabled total child Disabled
Attitude word (%) (%) (%) (%) total (%) (sig.) (%) total (%) (sig.)

intelligent 15.4 8.1 0.012 14.25 7.3 0.090 14.83 7.7 0.434
happy 17.9 9.7 0.029 18.35 13.4 0.096 18.13 11.55 0.051
interesting 11.4 7.3 0.808 5.5 9.85 0.108 8.45 8.56 0.783
ugly 4.1 4.8 0.206 3.1 0.95 0.180 3.6 2.87 0.030
evil 6.5 1.6 0.058 3.45 3.95 0.739 4.99 2.77 0.188
brave 9.8 16.1 0.346 13.8 13.1 0.808 11.8 14.6 0.939
poor 0 7.3 0.011 2.8 10.25 0.033 1.4 8.77 0.286
sad 1.6 10.5 0.002 3.8 9.45 0.008 2.7 9.97 0.992
beautiful 7.3 1.6 0.020 9.05 2.7 0.011 8.18 2.14 0.337
good 15.4 12.1 0.206 13.85 10.9 0.134 14.48 11.5 0.410
coward 2.4 4.8 0.705 2.75 4.6 0.257 2.56 4.7 0.625
boring 4.9 9.7 0.197 4.85 7.1 0.593 4.86 8.4 0.706
unintelligent 3.3 6.5 0.058 4.45 6.45 0.564 3.86 6.47 0.680
Total 100 100.0 – 100 100 – 100 100 –
65
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 66

Research in Education No. 77

Table 3 Gender and non-disabled children’s employment of attitude words

School

A/B A/B A/B A/B A/B A/B

Attitude Non- Non- Non-
word disabled disabled disabled Disabled Disabled Disabled
total total male/ total total male/
female male female female male female
(%) (%) (sig.) % % (sig.)

interesting 15.45 14.7 0.388 10.35 5.05 0.207

happy 19.15 16.85 0.371 10.85 12.1 0.966
interesting 6.4 9.2 0.149 11.85 7.6 0.098
ugly 3.75 3.55 0.295 1.65 4.1 0.318
evil 3.05 6.3 0.128 2.85 2.7 0.852
brave 10.65 14.1 0.204 16.45 11.15 0.065
poor 3.65 0 0.028 3.5 13.7 0
sad 3.65 1.85 0.884 8.85 9.4 0.799
beautiful 9.95 6.65 0.288 4.35 0 0.017
good 16.9 11.2 0.040 12.35 12.25 0.582
coward 0.7 4.6 0.014 4.35 5.05 0.911
boring 4.45 5.4 0.899 7.45 8.45 0.327
unintelligent 2.25 5.6 0.090 5.1 8.45 0.335
Total 100 100 – 100 100 –

significant differences in terms of gender. The data in Table 1 provide a

refinement of children’s conceptualisation: disability is associated with a per-
son who has something wrong with them (30 per cent), is unable to use their
legs/feet (24.3 per cent) or cannot do something as ‘good’ as a non-disabled
person (16 per cent). The data also suggest there are slight gender differences
in children’s definition of disability. The data indicate that females feel dis-
ability means a person has something wrong with them or are not well,
whereas males’ definitions relate to incapacity in terms of a person’s feet or
legs. In summary, then, an overview of the data suggests that non-disabled
children define disability similarly to the medical model, observing it to be
‘an effect on bodily function’ (Johnstone, 2001, p. 10) that serves to make
them ‘“better” or superior to people with a disability’ (Johnstone, p. 16).
Table 2 summarises the data in respect of the attitude words non-disabled
children associate with a Disabled child who is a wheelchair user. These
results suggest the participants in the study feel that Disabled children are
brave (14.6 per cent), good (11.5 per cent), interesting (8.56 per cent) and
intelligent (7.7 per cent). Problematically, these seemingly positive attitudes
are tempered by the results which indicate the participants saw Disabled chil-
dren as sad (9.97 per cent), poor (8.77 per cent) and boring (8.4 per cent). It
is also interesting to note that some writers argue that the employment of the
66 word ‘brave’ in relation to Disabled people does not indicate a positive atti-
Table 4 Gender and non-disabled children’s employment of attitude words by individual school
School
ResearchinEdu No77

A A A A A A B B B B B B
Non- Non- Non- Non-
disabled Disabled disabled Disabled disabled Disabled disabled
8/6/07

Attitude child child Sig. child child Sig. child child Sig. child Disabled Sig.
word female female female male male male female female female male child male
% % % % % % % %
16:32

intelligent 16.7 9.9 0.025 15.2 6.3 0.132 14.2 10.8 0.317 14.3 3.8 0.157
happy 20 8.2 0.058 15.2 11 0.257 18.3 13.5 0.180 18.4 13.3 0.317
interesting 10 11.5 0.480 10.2 7.7 0.317 2.8 12.2 0.035 8.2 7.5 1.00
Page 67

ugly 3.3 3.3 0.655 5.1 6.3 0.180 4.2 0 0.083 2 1.9 1.00
evil 3.3 1.6 0.564 8.5 1.6 0.059 2.8 4.1 0.655 4.1 3.8 1.00
brave 10 18 0.157 11.9 11 1.00 11.3 14.9 0.206 16.3 11.3 0.257
poor 1.7 1.6 1.00 0 12.3 0.005 5.6 5.4 1.00 0 15.1 0.005
sad 1.7 8.2 0.034 1.7 9.4 0.025 5.6 9.5 0.034 2 9.4 0.102
beautiful 10 3.3 0.102 5.1 0 0.083 9.9 5.4 0.180 8.2 0 0.025
good 18.3 18 0.564 10.2 9.4 0.257 15.5 6.7 0.020 12.2 15.1 0.705
coward 0 3.3 0.317 5.1 6.3 1.00 1.4 5.4 0.046 4.1 3.8 0.564
boring 3.3 8.2 0.414 6.7 9.4 0.317 5.6 6.7 1.00 4.1 7.5 0.414
unintelligent 1.7 4.9 0.083 5.1 9.4 0.257 2.8 5.4 0.414 6.1 7.5 1.00
Total 100 100 – 100 100 – 100 100 – 100 100 –
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 68

Research in Education No. 77

Table 5 Should children who use wheelchairs be allowed into your class? (%)
School
A A B B A/B

Gender Male Female Total Male Female Total Total

Yes 86 89 87.5 70 100 85 86.3
Not sure 7 5.5 6.25 30 0 15 10.6
No 7 5.5 6.25 0 0 0 3.1

Table 6 Reasons for allowing children who use wheelchairs into classroom (%)
School
A A A B B B A/B
Reason Female Male Total Female Male Total Overall
Make friends/play
with 0 10 5 7.7 12.5 10.1 7.55
Would be silly/evil
not to allow 20 0 10 7.7 0 3.85 6.93
They are no different
to anybody else 60 30 45 61.5 0 30.75 37.86
Same amount of
rights we do 20 0 10 0 0 0 5
To be looked after 0 20 10 0 12.5 6.25 8.13
They still need to learn 0 10 5 0 37.5 18.75 11.88
Not fair on them if we
do not allow 0 10 5 15.4 25 20.2 12.6
Because they are nice 0 10 5 0 0 0 2.5
Nothing wrong with
being in a wheelchair 0 10 5 7.7 0 3.85 4.43
To get a job you need
to go to school 0 0 0 0 12.5 6.25 3.12

tude but rather suggests a patronising one (Deal, 2003; Lenney and Ser-
combe, 2002).
At first reference, then, the data imply that the participants in the research
hold mixed attitudes towards Disabled children. Further analysis, however,
which compared the participants’ use of attitude words in relation to a non-
disabled and a Disabled child, highlights some noteworthy findings. For the
participants in the study, a non-disabled child was likely to be 7 per cent more
intelligent, 6.5 per cent happier, 6 per cent more beautiful and 3 per cent
more good than their Disabled counterpart. In addition, a non-disabled child
was likely to be 3 per cent less brave, 7 per cent less poor and 7 per cent less
sad than a Disabled child. Statistical analysis, though, denotes that a signifi-
cant difference (p < 0.05) in word use is discernible only in relation to the
68 use of the word ‘ugly’.
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 69

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

Table 7 Interactions with children who use wheelchairs (%)
School
A A Total B B Total Total
Gender Male Female Male Female A/B
Yes 33.3 66.7 50 54.5 66.7 60.6 55.3
No 66.7 33.3 50 45.5 33.3 39.4 44.7

Table 8 Hierarchy of disabilities

School
Friendship Response A+ A+ A B
category B B
(%) (sig.) (%) (%)
Visually impaired
Yes 50.9 0.554 48.2 53.8
Not sure 37.7 37 38.5
No 11.3 14.8 7.7
Walking frame
Yes 45.3 0.791 40.7 50
Not sure 43.4 51.9 34.6
No 11.3 7.4 15.4
Wheelchair user
Yes 67.9 0.008 51.9 84.6
Not sure 24.5 33.3 15.4
No 7.5 14.8 0
Able-bodied
Yes 84.9 0.909 85.2 84.6
Not sure 13.2 14.8 11.6
No 1.9 0 3.8

The data presented in Table 3 indicate that gender differentials exist in

non-disabled children’s employment of attitude words in the description of
Disabled children. For example, females observe Disabled children to be
brave (16.45 per cent), interesting (11.85 per cent), intelligent (10.35 per
cent), unintelligent (5.1 per cent), beautiful (4.35 per cent), poor (3.5 per
cent) and ugly (1.65 per cent). Whereas males perceive Disabled children as
brave (11.5 per cent), interesting (7.6 per cent) intelligent (5.05 per cent),
unintelligent (8.45 per cent), beautiful (0 per cent), poor (13.7 per cent) and
ugly (4.1 per cent). It would appear, then, that generally males have a more
negative attitude to Disabled children than do females. However, this line of
analysis is challenged by the employment of statistical analysis which denotes
that it is only in respect of the use of ‘poor’ and ‘beautiful’ that the differ-
ences in male attitudes are significant (p < 0.05).
A summation of the data suggests non-disabled children conceptualise dis- 69
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 70

Research in Education No. 77

ability mainly in terms of incapacity of lower limb function, or relate it to the

employment of a wheelchair. Furthermore, the data offer limited support for
Siperstein and Gottlieb’s (1977) and Laws and Kelly’s (2005) findings that,
generally, females have a more positive attitude to disability than do their
non-disabled male counterparts. Of concern, though, are the findings which
suggest that children have a narrow conceptualisation of disability and that
this conceptualisation appears to be firmly located within the medical deficit
model. Additionally, the findings of the attitude word survey intimate the
participants observe Disabled children to be more unintelligent, ugly, boring,
cowardly and poor than their non-disabled counterparts. Positively, the data,
from this component of the study, whilst suggesting that stereotypic attitudes
exist, do not discern one significant ‘attitude constellation’ (Gottlieb and
Switzky, 1982). Problematically, though, if it is the case, as Townsend et al.
(1993) posit, that more positive attitudes are the precursor to acceptance of
Disabled people in social networks, these findings suggest non-disabled chil-
dren’s conceptualisation of disability may have the potentiality to act as a bar-
rier to the development of successful inclusive practice.

Non-disabled children’s understanding of, and feelings towards, inclusion

The responses of the participants to questions which related to inclusion
were analysed by the employment of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss,
1967). This analysis illustrates that both the male and female participants
have little, if any, understanding of the concept of inclusion. Whilst the data
indicate that the majority of the children (80 per cent) proffered no answer
to the inclusion question, interestingly, approximately 10 per cent of the par-
ticipants employed statements such as ‘I think inclusion means people who
think they are better than other people’ or ‘It means somebody who has a dis-
ability’. At one level it might be argued that one should not expect children
of that age to understand the concept of inclusion. However, my contention
is that these findings would seemingly raise an important issue, in terms of
the development of inclusive education. This is because the ‘UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child acknowledges children hold the right to express
their opinions about issues affecting them and the right to have these views
heard’ (Garth and Aroni, 2003, p. 561). How, then, can children express
their opinions about inclusionary issues if they do not understand what inclu-
sion or inclusive education actually mean? The findings from the research
indicate that there is an apparent need to educate non-disabled children in
respect of the government’s current strategy of inclusive education.
Whilst the preceding findings are somewhat negative, the data presented
in Table 5 denote the participants have a very positive attitude towards the
specific inclusion of children who are wheelchair users. The reasons for this
positive attitude are outlined in Table 6, and the data indicate that non-dis-
abled children observe Disabled wheelchair users to be ‘no different than
anybody else’ (38 per cent), ‘it would not be fair to not include them’ (13 per
70 cent) and that Disabled children still need to learn (12 per cent). This posi-
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 71

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

tive attitudinal outlook is clearly articulated by individual participants, for
example:
Yes, they should come into our class, because they are only humans with a
wheelchair, and a wheelchair is like a bike, so it’s a person with a bike.
Yes, because children come to school to learn, and the wheelchair does not
stop them learning.

Whilst the majority of the responses in relation to this specific inclusion issue
are positive, it is pertinent to note that a small minority of children did not
want to include wheelchair users in their class. For example:
They’re not different, so they could be allowed [into my class], but it would
be better if they went to a Disabled school.
I’m not sure, because they have needs and we can’t cover some of those
needs.
No, because they’ll not be able to play good.
No, because they would be putting children off their work.

The data presented in Table 6 also demonstrate a clear gender differential in

response to this specific inclusion question. Females, in the main, believe that
physically disabled children should be included because ‘they are no differ-
ent to us’ whereas males, although subscribing to the female viewpoint, indi-
cate that inclusion is more about equality of learning opportunity. One other
point of interest is that 16 per cent of males felt that Disabled children should
be included so they can be ‘looked after’; no females offered such a response.

Is there a ‘hierarchy of disability’ in the minds of non-disabled children?

Research (Bishop and Jubula, 1994; Forest and Lusthaus, 1989) suggests that
the formation of friendships is an important function of the educational
process. This importance seemingly lies in the belief that the ‘sense of belong-
ing’ created by friendships facilitates the optimal conditions for cognitive
growth and social development (Bunch and Valeo, 2000). Problematic,
though, is the suggestion that disability is perceived to be a factor which inter-
feres in the process of friendship formation (Weiserbs and Gottlieb, 2000)
and generally non-disabled children prefer to make friends with ‘able-bod-
ied’ people. Other research findings (Laws and Kelly, 2005, p. 93) suggest
that 25 per cent of children would ‘not want to interact with a child at school
in the classroom or on the playground’. Furthermore, some researchers
(Richardson and Ronald, 1977) suggest that non-disabled children hold a
hierarchy of disability that ensures that they have a greater potentiality to
form friendships with those Disabled children who more closely conform to
the ‘norms’ of physical appearance. The results of the study (see Table 8),
offer a confirmation of these previous findings, as the participants indicate a
significant preference (p < 0.05) in their willingness to make friends with
non-disabled as opposed to Disabled children. For example, whilst 45 per 71
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 72

Research in Education No. 77

cent and 51 per cent of the participants would definitely make friends with
a child who uses a walking frame or who is visually impaired, 85 per cent
would make friends with an ‘able-bodied’ child. The data contained in Table
8 also denote that the participants would more easily form a friendship with
a child who uses a wheelchair than a child with a visual impairment or one
who requires a walking frame (p < 0.05). This finding seemingly undermines
the notion of earlier research which denotes that sensory impairments nor-
mally rank lower in terms of barriers to friendship than do physical disabili-
ties. In relation to the factor of gender, the results demonstrate that
significantly more males (p < 0.05) than females would form a friendship
with a child who employed a walking aid. The data from this component of
the study demonstrate that the participants have seemingly internalised a
‘hierarchy of disability’ and there is a suggestion that this internalisation
might have the potentiality to affect the formation of friendships.

Do non-disabled children’s conceptualisation of, and attitudes towards, disability vary

in mainstream schools that have included Disabled children as opposed to schools
that have not?
During the past few decades many Western countries have developed poli-
cies of inclusive education (Jacques et al., 1998). These policies have been
formulated upon the premise that inclusion is a basic human right and that
the rejection of Disabled people by society stems from lack of peer interac-
tion. Advocates of inclusive education argue that this form of education facil-
itates ‘stronger social and academic achievement, advances citizenship and
the development of a stronger community’ (Bunch and Valeo, 2004, p. 61).
However, other researchers argue that the success of such policies is
dependent upon ‘community acceptance, and community acceptance hinges
on positive individual interactions taking place between people with able
bodies and people with disabilities’ (Lenney and Sercombe, 2002, p. 6). The
next section further examines the data and analyses whether non-disabled
children in a school (school A), where more interaction with Disabled chil-
dren takes place, have a propensity to foster more positive interactions with
Disabled children than do their counterparts in a school where interaction
with people with physical disabilities is minimal (school B).
An examination of the data produced by this component of the research
indicates only a slight difference in how children in school A conceptualise
disability. Seven per cent fewer children in school A than in school B indi-
cated that disability relates solely to the employment of a wheelchair. In
respects of ‘allowing’ children who use wheelchairs into their classroom there
is no real difference of opinion between the two schools. However, a differ-
ence is apparent in children’s acceptance of this inclusive practice. For
example, children in school A felt that inclusion should be allowed because
Disabled children are no different (45 per cent) and they have the same rights
(10 per cent) as we do. The children in school B, though, did not indicate
that Disabled children had the same rights and only 38 per cent felt that chil-
72 dren with disabilities were no different from themselves. Interestingly, 20 per
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 73

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

cent of these children thought that not to allow wheelchair users into their
class would not be fair and 19 per cent felt that Disabled children still needed
an education. Whereas only 5 per cent of their counterparts in school A artic-
ulated belief in equality of opportunity and a similar number intimated that
Disabled children still needed an education.
The results outlined above illustrate little, if any, difference between the
two schools in respect of non-disabled children’s conceptualisation of dis-
ability or in how the participants view the practice of inclusion. The data con-
tained within Tables 2, 4, 6 and 8, though, describe a somewhat different
picture. Here the results demonstrate that the children in school A hold a
seemingly more negative attitude towards disability than the children in
school B. This assertion is based upon the range of attitude words employed
by the participants in school A. These denote that the children in school A
have a higher incidence of the use of negative attitude words in the descrip-
tion of Disabled children. The children in school A felt that Disabled children
are likely to be significantly (p < 0.05) less intelligent, less happy, less beau-
tiful, poorer and sadder than non-disabled children. In contrast the children
in school B display a significant difference of attitude in relation to only three
words: ‘poor’, ‘sad’ and ‘beautiful’. Overall, the results indicate that children
in school A, especially females, had a greater propensity to described Dis-
abled children in the negative. This finding, though disturbing, should be
tempered by the fact that direct statistical comparison between the two
schools demonstrates that it is only in the employment of the word ‘ugly’ that
a significant attitude difference exists (p < 0.05).
The above findings lead one to speculate that the inclusion of Disabled chil-
dren into school A have actually led to the development of negative attitudes
towards disability. However, in reality one might only posit a correlation
between attitude formation and inclusive education because the current study
is limited in that it had no specific attitudinal baseline from which to work.
Therefore it is impossible to make a definitive assertion, in this case, that
greater interaction of non-disabled and Disabled children leads to the for-
mulation of more negative attitudes towards Disabled children. Despite this
limitation, it is notable that other research studies (see Bunch and Valeo,
2002; Roberts and Zubrick, 1993; Townsend et al., 1993) are supportive of
such a correlation.
In summary, then, a conspectus of the data intimates that the non-disabled
children hold more negative attitudes towards physically disabled children
and it seems that greater interaction between the two groups does not appear
to have had any significant effect upon how children conceptualise or oper-
ationalise the concept of disability.

Conclusion
The findings of this small exploratory research suggest that the participants
in the study demonstrated lack of understanding with regards to the com-
plexity of disability and therefore hold an extremely narrow conceptualisa- 73
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 74

Research in Education No. 77

tion of how it is operationalised within our society. Furthermore, the partic-

ipants’ understanding of disability is apparently located within the realms of
medical deficit in that they mainly describe it in terms of incapacity of lower
limb function and the employment of a wheelchair. Additionally the data sug-
gest that primary-age children have limited knowledge and understanding of
the concept of inclusion. This limitation appears to be constraining their
understanding, and articulation, of how ‘social conditions, can lead either to
render impairment insignificant or to transform impairment to disability’
(Michailikis, 2003, p. 224).The results of the study suggest, therefore, that
there is a need to educate non-disabled children that ‘disability is a shifting
socio-spatial construct rather than a stable, constant identity position’ (Holt,
2004, p. 15). Disturbingly, the findings also suggest that non-disabled chil-
dren, even those who have had no interaction with a Disabled person, hold
negative attitudes towards disability. This finding would imply that ‘schools
are porous rather than bounded spaces where children utilise knowledge and
experience gained in other contexts’ (Holt, 2004, p. 5) in the formulation of
negative attitudes towards disability. Problematic to the development of suc-
cessful inclusive educational practice is that research argues that these out-
side stimuli have the potentiality to undermine the interaction process
between Disabled and non-disabled children (Lenney and Sercombe, 2000).
More positive, though, are the data which highlight that the participants have
one of the major ingredients required for successful inclusive education, that
is, in one form or another they appear to be strongly committed to the pre-
mise of equality of educational opportunity. However, the present research
questions whether this commitment, coupled only with the simple placement
of Disabled children into mainstream schools, will provide the catalyst for
the development of successful inclusive educational practices. The findings
of the research enable a suggestion to be made that, in actuality, children’s
negative attitudes and narrow conceptualisation of disability will, potentially,
provide a recipe for disaster in relation to the inclusion of Disabled children
in mainstream schools. Based upon these findings it is concluded that non-
disabled children need to be educated about inclusive education and that
more research into their attitudes and conceptions of disability needs to be
undertaken.

References
Antonak, R., and Livneh, H. (1989), The Measurement of Attitudes toward People
with Disabilities: Methods, Psychometrics, and Scales, Springfield IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Barnes, C., and Mercer, G. (2003), Disability, London: Polity Press.
Bishop, K., and Jubula, K. (1994), ‘By June, given shared experiences, integrated
classes, and equal opportunities, Jaime will have a friend’, Teaching Exceptional
Children 21 (1), 36–40.
Bunch, G., and Valeo, A. (2004), ‘Student attitudes towards peers with disabilities in
inclusive and special education schools’, Disability and Society 19 (1), 61–76.
Davis, J. M., and Watson, D. (2001), ‘Where are the children’s experiences? Cultural
74
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 75

Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability

and social exclusion in “special” and “mainstream” schools’, Disability and Society
16, 671–87.
Deal, M. (2003), ‘Disabled people’s attitudes toward other impairment groups: a
hierarchy of impairments’, Disability and Society 18 (7), 897–910.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004), Removing Barriers to Achieve-
ment: the Government’s Strategy for SEN, executive summary, London: DfES.
Forest, M., and Lusthaus, E. (1989), ‘Promoting educational equality for all students’,
in S. Stainback, W. Stainback and M. Forest (eds), Educating all Students in the
Mainstream of Regular Education, Baltimore MD: Paul H. Brookes, pp. 43–58.
Garth, B., and Aroni, R. (2003), ‘“I value what you have to say”: seeking the per-
spective of children with a disability, not just their parents’, Disability and Society
18 (5), 561–76.
Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago:
Aldine.
Gottlieb, J., and Switzky, H. N. (1982), ‘Development of school-age children’s stereo-
typic attitudes towards mentally retarded children’, American Journal of Mental
Deficiency 86 (6), 596–600.
Gray, D. E. (2002), ‘“Everybody just freezes. Everybody is just embarrassed”: felt and
enacted stigma among parents of children with high functioning autism’, Sociology
of Health and Illness 24 (6), 734–49.
Guralnick, M. J. (2002), ‘Involvement with peers: comparisons between young chil-
dren with and without Down’s syndrome’, Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research 46 (5), 379–83.
Harasymiw, S. J., Horne, M. D., and Lewis, S. C. (1976), ‘A longitudinal study of dis-
ability group acceptance’, Rehabilitation Literature 37, 98–102.
Hodkinson, A. J. (2005), ‘Conceptions and misconceptions of inclusive education: a
critical examination of final-year teacher trainees’ knowledge and understanding of
inclusion’, Research in Education 73, 15–28.
Hodkinson, A. J. (2006), ‘Conceptions and misconceptions of inclusive education –
one year on: a critical analysis of Newly Qualified Teachers’ knowledge and under-
standing of inclusion’, Research in Education 76, 43–55.
Holt, L. (2004), ‘Childhood disability and ability: (Dis)ableist geographies of main-
stream primary schools’, Disability Studies Quarterly 24 (3), 1–20.
Imerie, R., and Kumar, M. (1998), ‘Focusing on disability and access in the built
environment’, Disability and Society 13, 357–74.
Jackson, P. (1983), ‘Principles and problems of participant observation’, Geografis-
cka Annaler 65B, 39–46.
Jacques, N., Wilton, K., and Townsend, M. (1998), ‘Cooperative learning and social
acceptance of children with mild intellectual disability’, Journal of Intellectual Dis-
ability Research 42 (1), 29–36.
Johnstone, D. (2001), An Introduction to Disability Studies, London: Fulton.
Laws, G., and Kelly, E. (2005), ‘The attitudes and friendship intentions of children in
United Kingdom mainstream schools towards peers with physical or intellectual
disabilities’, Journal of Disability, Development and Education 2, 79–99.
Lenney, M., and Sercombe, H. (2002), ‘“Did you see that guy in the wheelchair down
the pub?” Interactions across difference in a public place’, Disability and Society 17
(1), 5–18.
Manion, M. L., and Bersani, H. A. (1987), ‘Mental retardation as a Western socio-
logical construct: a cross-cultural analysis’, Disability, Handicap and Society 2 (3),
231–41.
Martlew, M., and Hodson, J. (1991), ‘Children with mild learning difficulties in an
integrated and in a Special school: comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teacher
attitudes’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 61 (3), 355–72.
Michailakis, D. (2003), ‘The systems theory concept of disability: one is not born a
Disabled person, one is observed to be’, Disability and Society 18 (2), 209–29. 75
ResearchinEdu No77 8/6/07 16:32 Page 76

Research in Education No. 77

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Mea-

surement (new edition), London: Pinter.
Richardson, S. A., and Ronald, L. (1977), ‘The effect of a physical handicapped inter-
viewer on children’s expression of values toward handicap’, Rehabilitation Psy-
chology 24 (4), 211–18.
Roberts, C., and Zubrick, S. (1993), ‘Factors influencing the status of children
with mild intellectual disabilities in regular classroom’, Exceptional Children 59,
192–202.
Shakespeare, T. (1994), ‘Cultural representation of Disabled people: dustbins for dis-
avowal? Disability and Society 9 (3), 283–91.
Sheare, J. B. (1974), ‘Social acceptance of EMR adolescents in integrated programs’,
American Journal of Metal Deficiency 78, 678–82.
Siperstein, G. N., and Gottlieb, J. (1977), ‘Physical stigma and academic performance
as factors affecting children’s first impressions of handicapped peers’, American
Journal of Mental Deficiency 81, 455–62.
Siperstein, G. N., and Lettert, J. S. (1997), ‘Comparisons of socially accepted and
rejected children with mental retardation’, American Journal of Mental Retardation
101, 339–51.
Spaling, E. (2002), ‘Social acceptance at senior high school’, International Journal of
Special Education 17 (1), 91–100.
Townsend, M. A. R., Wilton, K. M., and Vakilirad, T. (1993), ‘Children’s attitudes
towards peers with intellectual disability’, Disability and Society 37, 405–11.
Tregaskis, C. (2000), ‘Interviewing non-disabled people about their disability-related
attitudes: seeking methodologies’, Disability and Society 15 (2), 343–55.
Upton, T. D., and Harper, D. C. (2000), Multidimensional Disability Attitudes and
Equitable Evaluation of Educational Accommodations by College Students without
Disabilities, University of Iowa, www.ahead.org/members/jped/articles.
Weinberg, N. (1978), ‘Preschool children’s perceptions of orthopaedic disability’,
Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin 21 (3), 183–9.
Weiserbs, B., and Gottlieb, J. (2000), ‘The effect of perceived duration of physical
disability on attitudes of school children towards friendship and helping’, Journal
of Psychology 134, 343–5.
Zic, A., and Igri, L. (2001), ‘Self-assessment of relationships with peers in children
with intellectual disability’, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 45 (3),
202–11.

Address for correspondence

School of Education, University of Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester CH1 4BJ. E-mail
a.hodkinson@chester.ac.uk

76