Convivial encounters: Conditions for the urban social inclusion of people with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities

Abstract

Recent work has pointed to the importance for their social inclusion of convivial encounters between people with and without disabilities, but little is known about the spatial and social conditions of the places that encourage these encounters. This paper is concerned with public places that are conducive for convivial encounters between people with and without disabilities. Drawing on extensive participative observations of four community projects and 78 interviews with people visiting or working at these projects we investigated which elements in these places encourage ‘strangers’ to move from merely co-presence to conviviality. Three conditions seem to be conducive, namely: (1) a shared purpose, (2) built-in boundaries, (3) freedom to (dis)engage. These conditions were beneficial for convivial encounters, but do not lead to friendship or long-term support. People engage in such contact because they can be sure that these contacts do not raise expectations of long-term support or friendship.

Micro-recognition, invisibility and hesitation: Theorising the non-encounter in the social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

“…This transformation of biographical strangership is in line with the findings of research into convivial encounters of people with disabilities. Through repeated encounters people with disabilities and people without intellectual disabilities can become acquainted and develop a sense of "becoming known" (Bredewold et al, 2019;Wiesel & Bigby, 2014).…”

“…The proposal by Bigby and Wiesel (2011) to consider encounters in western public spaces as a dimension of social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities has spurred a fruitful strand of empirical research (for an overview, see Bigby & Wiesel, 2019). It has focused on the different forms of social interaction between people with intellectual disabilities and people without intellectual disabilities in public and semipublic places (Bigby & Wiesel, 2019;Bos, 2016), and on the conditions that foster such encounters between people with and without intellectual disabilities, including the role of dogs (Bould et al, 2018), support workers (Bigby & Wiesel, 2015) and neighbourhood initiatives (Bredewold et al, 2019).…”

“…However, prior research indicates that encounters often do not occur between people with intellectual disabilities and people without intellectual disabilities (Bigby & Wiesel, 2019;Bos, 2016;Bredewold et al, 2019). In a "non-encounter" (Bigby & Wiesel, 2019), there is potential for an encounter, but it does not take place.…”

“…Especially in the context of projects that aim to promote encounters between people with and without intellectual disabilities, "non-encounters" are disappointing and painful (Bredewold et al, 2019).…”

Creating opportunities for convivial encounters for people with intellectual disabilities: “It looks like an accident”

“…Observations of people living in group homes, supported by staff to go out, found they were more likely to experience convivial encounters in places where activities were non-competitive, people had a common purpose and there were opportunities for verbal and non-verbal communication (Wiesel & Bigby, 2014. Two Dutch studies of projects, such as community gardens or urban farms, concluded that places with built-in social boundaries, shared purpose, clear roles and rules around participation and interaction, and ease of disengaging from social interaction were more conducive to encounters involving people with intellectual disabilities (Bredewold et al, 2016(Bredewold et al, , 2019. In terms of props, dogs have been observed to facilitate convivial encounters in both Dutch and Australian studies (Bould et al, 2018;Bredewold et al, 2016).…”