Running Head: SOCIAL INCLUSION 1

Social Inclusion: A Path to Global Inclusion for People with Disabilities

Robert F LeSueur

George Mason University

SOCIAL INCLUSION 2

People with disabilities have and continue to be marginalized around the world. While

the views of disability have evolved over the last few decades, people with disabilities are still

excluded from many aspects of daily life and are still thought less of by much of society

(Steinbach, Allyse, Michie, Liu, & Cho, 2016). The ideals of a more inclusive society have been

encouraged by international and intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations

(UN) and World Bank. When put into to practice, these programs have focused primarily on

inclusive education and deinstitutionalization. This falls short of meeting the needs and rights of

people with disabilities. Social inclusion programs and policies offer a more universal response

to encouraging full inclusion of people with disabilities across settings and the lifespan.

United Nations Agreements

Agreements between UN member states have furthered the inclusive education

movement around the globe. Over the last 30 years, three important such agreements were

made to promote this movement across all member states. These major agreements are the

Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Education, the Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Salamanca Statement

The Salamanca Statement was a signed call for an increase of inclusive education

around the world (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),

1994). In the summer of 1994, representatives from 92 governments and 25 international

organizations from around the world convened to discuss and debate the objectives of

Education for All for students with disabilities. The focus of the discussions was promoting

policy changes throughout the world that would equip schools and teachers within the
SOCIAL INCLUSION 3

respective countries to serve and teach all children regardless of any special educational needs

(Ainscow, 1997). The resulting statement focused on inclusion in schools as a guiding principle

in shaping the suggestions, specifically stating that advancement in attainment for students

with disabilities could not happen in isolation.

The Salamanca Statement not only called for worldwide acceptance of an inclusive

education model as paramount, but also set a framework of smaller goals towards the main

goal of all children being taught within the general education schools within their home

communities regardless of any deficit in abilities or needs to achieve within the classroom

(Nutbrown & Clough, 2004). The Statement had economic, political, and societal goals, along

with the educational goals. Economic goals included teaching people with disabilities the

communication, daily living, and work skills necessary to participate economically within their

community. Another economic goal was to centralize all supports for people with disabilities to

the local community to be more effective and immediate in meeting these needs. Countries

were to build communication networks to support each other in attaining these goals in a cost-

effective manner. Politically, the Statement called on member countries to give utmost priority

to enacting these goals through policy changes and funding decisions. The primary societal goal

was to increase the public knowledge of disabilities and reduce the negative reactions of society

to people with disabilities.

Many of the signatory countries were still utilizing institutionalization of people with

disabilities as their primary or sole form of education resulting in segregation by actual or

perceived ability (Bondar, 2014; de Boer & Munde, 2015; Mngo & Mngo, 2018). The results of

participating in the Salamanca Statement for these governments was a shift in thinking about
SOCIAL INCLUSION 4

people with disabilities. Among many countries, national policy shifted to match the guidelines

included in the Salamanca Statement, yet these policies were not recognized or implemented

on a local level in any sort of measurable action (Lipsky & Gartner, 1998).

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The UN’s CRPD furthered the protections and policy guidelines from the Salamanca

Statement beyond the confines of educational policy (UN General Assembly, 2007). This

resolution was passed by the UN General Assembly in 2006 and signed by 82 member states. To

date, 163 member states have signed the CRPD demonstrating a worldwide commitment to

acknowledging and protecting the rights and dignity of people with any disability (“Convention

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) | United Nations Enable,” 2019). This

resolution was a catalyst for many countries to begin getting more serious about their efforts

towards inclusive education seeing it as a pathway towards the guiding principles of the CRPD.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

To further the commitment of inclusion of people with disabilities, the United Nations

included people with disabilities with in the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda

for Sustainable Development adopted by all member countries in 2015 (Madans, Loeb, & Eide,

2017). The 2030 Agenda includes measurable targets that are to be met by all member

countries that address the needs for action by the world’s governments to protect the global

environment and the rights of the global citizenry (Razavi, 2016). The 17 goals included in the

2030 Agenda are interdependent, so the inclusion of wording about people with disabilities as a

disaggregated group for measurement of success and as a vulnerable population mean that the

rights of people with disabilities are of importance to meeting the goals.

SOCIAL INCLUSION 5

The 2030 Agenda is only four years into its implementation, but the first progress report

at the end of 2018 showed troubling information about the progress of implementation of the

goals for people with disabilities while other groups made significant progress (Niewohner,

Pierson, & Meyers, 2019). National policy changes do not seem to be reaching the local level

where the change will affect the outcomes for people with disabilities. The current

implementation is not working for this vulnerable population and new avenues to reaching the

goals set forth by the 2030 Agenda need to be explored and enacted into practice immediately

if any hope for making gains towards the goals in the subset population of people with

disabilities are to be recognized. Social inclusion practices are one such way to begin the work

to recognizing the goals.

Social Inclusion Theory

Social inclusion is not universally defined, but the UN and World Bank have similar

definitions. Since the purpose of this paper is to utilize social inclusion practices to further what

is available to people with disabilities and the UN has been a strong motivator of the

international inclusion movement for this population, I will use the definition of social inclusion

from the UN:

the process of improving the terms of participation in society for people who are

disadvantaged on the basis of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or

economic or other status, through enhanced opportunities, access to resources, voice

and respect for rights. (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2016, p. 20)

Social inclusion is dynamic and must be addressed at multiple levels: the individual, the group,

and the society in order to make a sustainable change (Simplican, Leader, Kosciulek, & Leahy,
SOCIAL INCLUSION 6

2015). To be fully socially included an individual or group must be able, without barriers, have

the opportunities to participate civically, socially, politically, and economically in society

(Shortall, 2008).

The recent focus on social inclusion by the UN, the World Bank, and the European Union

has encouraged an increase of empirical research on the topic. The vast majority of such studies

are about reversing the marginalization of people groups through community programming and

tend to focus on race, gender, and religion as the primary sources of the marginalization.

Despite not focusing on disability the source of marginalization such studies provide insight into

potential strategies to increase the social inclusion of people with disabilities.

A study by Gould (2017) was designed to identify effective strategies to including

students who were members of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller groups within the United Kingdom.

They found the most effective strategies were staff support focused directly on reversing

barriers to social inclusion, a strong school philosophy on anti-discrimination, and establishing a

meaningful connection with the communities that these pupils originated. All three of these

effective strategies were based on intentional decisions made by school leadership to more

actively engage student members from these communities.

Another study conducted within the United Kingdom by Curry, Joseph, and Slee (2001)

sought to determine what made programs effective in getting marginalized populations to

participate in recreation in the countryside, a pastime important to traditional British society.

The results indicated that projects that originated in the demands of the community were more

successful than projects brought into communities without a request. Involvement in such a

project must also have an empowering aspect for success to be noted. Of particular note, the
SOCIAL INCLUSION 7

researchers observed that projects can not oppose the importance of recreating in the

countryside on an individual or group that does not hold this same value. The opportunity must

be provided by removing barriers, such as cost, transportation, and lack of knowledge

necessary to participate. In this light, measures of effectiveness of such programming cannot

rely solely on quantitative measures of attendance.

Möhlen, Pfeiffer, Proyer, Schmölz, and Kremsner (2018) used game-based learning to

examine its effects on social inclusion in Austria. They included three males (two born in Austria

with a family history of immigration and one a refugee from Syria) and a female with a

disability. The findings of their observations demonstrated the near immediate learning of

socially inclusive language while also showing the deep-rooted nature of socially exclusionary

actions towards people that have been othered in one’s mind. Additionally, the findings

highlight the intersectionality of working towards social inclusion. This draws attention to the

individual nature of social inclusion in that just because the barriers to inclusion are removed

from the group level, it does not mean that all the barriers that an individual member of the

group will necessarily be overcome.

Disability Studies

People with disability are an extremely marginalized group of people all across the

world. Therefore, they are socially excluded from most settings and opportunities afforded to

the rest of the population. Studies have shown the results of this exclusion in access to

employment, school, civic engagement, political involvement, and society in general. This lack

of inclusion has resulted in severe limitations in positive outcomes for people with disabilities.

Schools
SOCIAL INCLUSION 8

People with disabilities have historically been excluded from education completely

internationally. When people with disabilities were provided access to education, it has been

segregated from students without disabilities and often far from their home community (Artiles

& Kozleski, 2016). Despite this historical placement, it has been shown that education of people

with disabilities within a general education setting results in greater academic and social

outcomes for student with and without disabilities (Cosier, Causton-Theoharis, & Theoharis,

2013). Exclusion from school and the community has resulted in a societal misunderstanding of

disability due to non-exposure to anyone with a disability by much of the world’s population

(Munyi, 2012). This problem of societal perception of disability is a common thread among

studies of the continued segregation of students with disabilities from being educated with

students without disabilities. Whether it is the continued refusal of modifying the school

building for physical access, intentional attitudinal barriers, or unintended attitudinal barriers,

all of these common exclusionary practices are a result of societal perception of disability and

the lack of importance of inclusive education that results (Pivik, McComas, & Laflamme, 2002).

One common approach to combat the perception problem is to prepare pre-service

teachers (PST)for teaching students with disabilities regardless of specialization. One of the

major contributing factors to the success in the movement towards more inclusive classrooms

is the positive attitudes of teachers towards the change (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Chao,

Forlin, & Ho, 2016). Identifying any negative attitudes before PSTs enter the work force means

these attitudes can be addressed through further training (Yaraya, Masalimova, Vasbieva, &

Grudtsina, 2018). Forlin, Earle, Loreman, and Sharma (2011) developed the Sentiments,

Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) to do exactly that. Once
SOCIAL INCLUSION 9

these perceptions are measured, there is a need for intervention in the training of these

preservice teachers with the hope to make more inclusively minded teachers when they enter

the profession. Yet, it must be noted that preparation alone cannot change these perceptions

(Westwood, 1997) since the biggest factor in more positive perceptions of students with

disabilities among teachers is previous extended exposure to someone with a disability (Böddi,

Serfőző, Lassú, & Kerekes, 2019). General education teachers, both preservice and current, feel

unprepared to adequately teach students with disabilities in an inclusive setting (Matzen,

Ryndak, & Nakao, 2010; Oswald & Swart, 2011). Effective training during preparation and

professional development is necessary to alleviate some of these concerns.

Employment

Gainful, competitive employment is a modern-day necessity for a sense of

independence and belonging to most societies. Despite this, the unemployment rate of people

with disabilities is over twice that of people without disabilities worldwide (Niewohner et al.,

2019). When people with disabilities are employed, it is most often part-time, underemployed,

or within non-inclusive, sheltered workshop settings (Chan, Evans, Chiu, Huxley, & Ng, 2015).

Additionally, people with disabilities are more likely to live in extreme poverty (Madans et al.,

2017).

Employment has been linked with an increase in number and depth of an individual’s

social and support networks (Louw, Kirkpatrick, & Leader, 2019). Competitive employment has

also been linked to increased levels of independence in living arrangements (Siperstein,

Heyman, & Stokes, 2014). This is all beyond the obvious financial security that comes with

holding gainful employment (Arksey, 2003).

SOCIAL INCLUSION 10

Civic Engagement

Civic engagement is the process of identifying and reacting to public issues. Civic

engagement is often associated with social agency. Since people with disabilities are often

viewed as not having the ability of making their own decisions, people with disabilities are often

absent from civic engagement except as the case of beneficiaries of civic works (Knight, 2016).

There have been limited studies into people with disabilities involving civic engagement

with many of the studies involving people with disabilities regarding them as the recipients of

the civic actions or charity (Kropp & Wolfe, 2018; Lawson, Cruz, & Knollman, 2017; Porter,

Hamm, Beamer, & Yun, 2016). Rak and Spencer (2016) linked employment and household

income to participation in volunteering activities while also finding that people with disabilities

were less likely to volunteer than people without disabilities. Despite the general lack of

studies, there has been a rise in inclusive volunteering, volunteering that makes an effort to

effectively involve people with disabilities in giving back. When people with disabilities are able

to volunteer, they exhibit positive emotional outcomes, an increased sense of purpose, and

come away from volunteering with a larger social network (Miller et al., 2002).

Political Involvement

Most of the prior civic engagement research has focused on the cross-domain activity of

voting participation. Worldwide people with disabilities have lower voter turnouts and face

exclusion from voting rights despite being protected directly within the CRPD (Lord, Suozzi, &

Taylor, 2010). A recent study in the Netherlands found that preparing to vote through accessing

information to be informed voters, accessibility toof the process of actually casting a ballot, and

the concerns about the assistance from voting officials were all barriers for people with
SOCIAL INCLUSION 11

disabilities in voting (Hees, Boeije, & Putter, 2019). Another study in the United States showed

that people with intellectual disabilities wanted to vote but the instruction on how to make

informed decisions or the political issues themselves is severely lacking (Agran, MacLean, &

Andren, 2015).

Outcomes of Social Inclusion Models for People with Disabilities

The increase of social inclusion of people with disabilities across settings is important for

the growth and future inclusion of people with disabilities. It has been demonstrated that more

exposure to people with disabilities is beneficial to society and results in future inclusive

practices by those that were previously in contact with a person with a disability (Kalymon,

Gettinger, & Hanley-Maxwell, 2010). Inclusion in school and other settings has been linked to an

increase of positive self-image in people with disabilities (Wei & Marder, 2012).

The biggest impact of social inclusion for people with disabilities is found through the

increase in all the quality of life indicators. Quality of life is a social construct used to describe

the satisfaction derived from various aspects of an individual’s life, or more simply as a

descriptor for what it means to have a good life (Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Quality of life

has been used to measure satisfaction across a variety of people with a variety disabilities,

disorders, or diseases. Schalock and colleagues (2005) validated a list of 24 indicators of quality

of life that fit into eight domains. The domains are emotional well-being, interpersonal

relations, material well-being, personal development, physical well-being, self-determination,

social inclusion, and rights. An overarching theme of autonomy over one’s choices in life is

evident throughout the literature as an integral measure of an individual’s quality of life

(Kostikj-Ivanovikj & Chichevska-Jovanova, 2016; Moro, Savage, & Gehlert, 2017).

SOCIAL INCLUSION 12

Recommendations

As shown within this paper, people with disabilities continue to be excluded for full

participation within the global society. Many steps to increase the inclusion of people with

disabilities within the education system have begun with success in many countries. While full

inclusion within general education settings for people with disabilities is still distant from

realization in much of the world, the groundwork exists. The other domains of social inclusion,

however, are much further from realization. More groundwork and emphasis on implementing

social inclusive practices in civic engagement, employment, and political involvement are

required.

The first step in making society inclusive is making it accessible. This should begin by

removing or circumventing physical barriers to inclusion. This can be done by installing ramps,

and curb cuts and widening the width of doors throughout public spaces, including access

points to all government agencies, businesses, and cultural points of interest. The next step in

accessibility is increasing the accessibility of information by providing it in formats that are

accessible to people with sensory impairments using captioning and Braille and people with

cognitive impairments by simplifying the language used and providing modalities to the

information that go beyond written text.

The next step is to increase the positive public perception of people with disabilities.

This is best done by having people with disabilities out in public living and participating in their

home communities where their neighbors can see their abilities in person versus continuing to

focus on the deficits. Another necessary aspect is the inclusion of people with disabilities within

the media. People with disabilities should be accurately and proportionately part of movies and
SOCIAL INCLUSION 13

television. Many societies rely heavily on these mediums to gain knowledge of the world

outside of their immediate household and as such will be able to see positive aspects of

disability beyond their immediate community.

The exclusion from exercising political rights must end immediately. The community of

people with disabilities has shown at least in part a desire to participate in politics through

voting. Even though the studies do not exist, it is a good hypothesis that many also would like a

more active role in politics, such as holding a public office. In addition, political information

about current issues, the policies of candidates, and the importance of being an informed voter

should be standard educational opportunities for people with disabilities.

In implementing social inclusion practices, it is important to remember that access to

the opportunity is paramount. It is necessary to remove the barriers for participation, even if

the population in question chooses not to utilize this opportunity. We must begin to include the

voices of people with disabilities in our metrics of success of these changes instead of relying

solely of quantitative measures.

SOCIAL INCLUSION 14

Bibliography

Agran, M., MacLean, W., & Andren, K. A. K. (2015). “ I never thought about it”: Teaching people
with intellectual disability to vote. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 50, 388.
Ainscow, M. (1997). Towards inclusive schooling. British Journal of Special Education, 24, 3–6.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.00002
Arksey, H. (2003). People into employment: Supporting people with disabilities and carers into
work. Health & Social Care in the Community, 11, 283–292.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.00421.x
Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical
notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24,
43. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1919
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration / inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Hong, J., Smith, L., Makuch, R., Greenberg, J., & Mailick, M. (2016).
Characterizing objective quality of life and normative outcomes in adults with autism
spectrum disorder: An exploratory latent class analysis. Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders, 46, 2707–2719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2816-3
Böddi, Z., Serfőző, M., Lassú, Z. F., & Kerekes, V. (2019). Integration-related experience and
preparedness from the aspect of hungarian preschool teacher candidates. International
Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 11, 80–91.
https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.587251
Bondar, T. (2014). Ukraine: Current tendencies in inclusion. American Journal of Educational
Research, American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12B), 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-12B-5
Chan, K., Evans, S., Chiu, M., Huxley, P., & Ng, Y.-L. (2015). Relationship between health,
experience of discrimination, and social inclusion among mental health service users in
Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 124, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-
014-0780-x
Chao, C. N. G., Forlin, C., & Ho, F. C. (2016). Improving teaching self-efficacy for teachers in
inclusive classrooms in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20,
1142–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1155663
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) | United Nations Enable. (2019).
Retrieved December 8, 2019, from
SOCIAL INCLUSION 15

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-
persons-with-disabilities.html
Cosier, M., Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2013). Does access matter? Time in general
education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial & Special Education,
34, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513485448
Curry, N. R., MA, D. H. J., & PhD, B. S. (2001). To climb a mountain? Social inclusion and outdoor
recreation in Britain. World Leisure Journal, 43, 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2001.9674233
de Boer, A. A., & Munde, V. S. (2015). Parental attitudes toward the inclusion of children with
profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in general primary education in the
Netherlands. The Journal of Special Education, 49(3), 179–187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914554297
Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns
about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’
perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50–65.
Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol21/iss3/5
Gould, S. (2017). Promoting the social inclusion and academic progress of Gypsy, Roma and
Traveller children: A secondary school case study. Educational Psychology in Practice,
33, 126–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2016.1259996
Hees, S. G. M. van, Boeije, H. R., & Putter, I. de. (2019). Voting barriers and solutions: The
experiences of people with disabilities during the Dutch national election in 2017.
Disability & Society, 34, 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566052
Kalymon, K., Gettinger, M., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (2010). Middle school boys’ perspectives on
social relationships with peers with disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 31, 305–
316.
Knight, A. (2016). Disability, paternalism, and autonomy: Rethinking political decision-making
and speech. Res Philosophica, 93, 865–891.
Kostikj-Ivanovikj, V., & Chichevska-Jovanova, N. (2016). Relation between quality of life, choice
making, and future expectations in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Special
Education & Rehabilitation, 17(3/4), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.19057/jser.2016.8
Kropp, J. J., & Wolfe, B. D. (2018). College students’ perceptions on effects of volunteering with
adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 22(3), 93–118. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1193368
SOCIAL INCLUSION 16

Lawson, J. E., Cruz, R. A., & Knollman, G. A. (2017). Increasing positive attitudes toward
individuals with disabilities through community service learning. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 69, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.07.013
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1998). International perspectives on special education reform.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 128–133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625980130113
Lord, J. E., Suozzi, D., & Taylor, A. L. (2010). Lessons from the experience of U.N. Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Addressing the democratic deficit in global health
governance. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38, 564–579.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00512.x
Louw, J. S., Kirkpatrick, B., & Leader, G. (2019). Enhancing social inclusion of young adults with
intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of original empirical studies. Journal of
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12678
Madans, J., Loeb, M., & Eide, A. H. (2017). Measuring disability and inclusion in relation to the
2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development. Disability and the Global South, 4, 1164–
1179.
Matzen, K., Ryndak, D., & Nakao, T. (2010). Middle school teams increasing access to general
education for students with significant disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 31,
287–304.
Miller, K. D., Schleien, S. J., Rider, C., Hall, C., Roche, M., & Worsley, J. (2002). Inclusive
volunteering: Benefits to participants and community. Therapeutic Recreation Journal,
36, 247–259.
Mngo, Z. Y., & Mngo, A. Y. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of inclusion in a pilot inclusive
education program: Implications for instructional leadership. Education Research
International, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3524879
Möhlen, L.-K., Pfeiffer, D., Proyer, M., Schmölz, A., & Kremsner, G. (2018). Playful social
inclusion: Approaching inclusive thinking and acting through game based learning.
Proceedings of the European Conference on E-Learning, 383–392. Retrieved from
http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=ehh&AN=134951092&site=ehost-live
Moro, T. T., Savage, T. A., & Gehlert, S. (2017). Agency, social and healthcare supports for adults
with intellectual disability at the end of life in out-of-home, non-institutional community
residences in Western nations: A literature review. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities, 30, 1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12374
Munyi, C. W. (2012). Past and present perceptions towards disability: A historical perspective.
Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3197
SOCIAL INCLUSION 17

Niewohner, J., Pierson, S., & Meyers, S. J. (2019). ‘Leave no one behind’? The exclusion of
persons with disabilities by development NGOs. Disability & Society. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687599.2019.1664053
Nutbrown, C., & Clough, P. (2004). Inclusion and exclusion in the early years: Conversations
with European educators. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625042000262479
Oswald, M., & Swart, E. (2011). Addressing South African pre-service teachers’ sentiments,
attitudes and concerns regarding inclusive education. International Journal of Disability,
Development & Education, 58(4), 389–403.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.626665
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education.
Exceptional Children, 69, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206900107
Porter, S., Hamm, J., Beamer, J., & Yun, J. (2016). Changes in acceptance of diversity through
volunteering with youth with disabilities.
Rak, E. C., & Spencer, L. (2016). Community participation of persons with disabilities:
Volunteering, donations and involvement in groups and organisations. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 38, 1705–1715. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1107643
Razavi, S. (2016). The 2030 Agenda: Challenges of implementation to attain gender equality and
women’s rights. Gender & Development, 24, 25–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1142229
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Jenaro, C., Wang, M., Wehmeyer, M., Jiancheng, X., &
Lachapelle, Y. (2005). Cross-cultural study of quality of life indicators. American Journal
on Mental Retardation, 110, 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-
8017(2005)110[298:CSOQOL]2.0.CO;2
Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic
engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural
Studies, 24, 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001
Simplican, S. C., Leader, G., Kosciulek, J., & Leahy, M. (2015). Defining social inclusion of people
with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks
and community participation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 18–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.008
Siperstein, G. N., Heyman, M., & Stokes, J. E. (2014). Pathways to employment: A national
survey of adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 41,
165–178. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140711
SOCIAL INCLUSION 18

Steinbach, R. J., Allyse, M., Michie, M., Liu, E. Y., & Cho, M. K. (2016). “This lifetime
commitment”: Public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic
screening. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 170, 363–374.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.37459
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2016). Identifying social inclusion and
exclusion. In Report on the World Social Situation 2016: Leaving no one Behind: The
Imparative of Inclusive Development (pp. 17–32). Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.18356/5aa151e0-en
UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (2007).
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (p. 50).
Salamanca, Spain.
Wei, X., & Marder, C. (2012). Self-concept development of students with disabilities: Disability
category, gender, and racial differences from early elementary to high school. Remedial
& Special Education, 33(4), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510394872
Westwood, P. (1997). Moving toward inclusion: Proceed with caution. Australian Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 2(3), 18–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404159709546536
Yaraya, T. A., Masalimova, A. R., Vasbieva, D. G., & Grudtsina, L. Yu. (2018). The development of
a training model for the formation of positive attitudes in teachers towards the inclusion
of learners with special educational needs into the educational environment. South
African Journal of Education, 38(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n2a1396