Introduction

In order to engender social integration , profound changes in attitude and behaviour are required, both with disabled and mainstream society, each tackling their own stereotypes, assumptions and fears. This is even more pertinent today with increasing emphasis placed on disabled people exercising choice and control in living a good life (Van Eden, 2013).

Factors underlying social exclusion

The World Bank (2011) ‘Inclusion Matters’ reported on research that stressed the importance of participation, suggesting that cultural choices are partly responsible for the way in which some groups take advantage of, or reject policies and programs. People with disabilities are one such group, but by no means the only one, at risk for making “self-exclusion” choices. Self-exclusion often results from negative past trauma. People may feel excluded because of stigma, and in turn, may internalize stigma to the extent that it prevents them from re-engaging with the mainstream. Exclusion, often conflated with discrimination, can affect the performance of excluded groups: In the labour market for instance, perceived discrimination can alter both the expectations of jobseekers and their future labour supply decisions, and may result in members of excluded groups to drop out of the labour force of their own volition. These experiences may equate social devaluation experiences where people feel rejected, subjected to degrading stereotypes (Kendrick, 2011) and generally excluded from community (Abbott & McConkey, 2006). The same phenomenon of renouncing engagement is constantly reported in education, where past discrimination experiences cause drops in learning ability or decreases in motivation to engage in further education. Elmslie and Sedo (1996) apply the concept of learned helplessness to demonstrate how negative events, such as an episode of discrimination, can result in the exclusion of the individual or group, with their ‘resignation’ to their ‘fate’, in turn diminishing human capital, constraining effort, and becoming somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Social integration does not naturally unfold from protecting against exclusion

Whilst in years gone by, disabled people have been specifically excluded from life in their communities, this is not the case anymore as most organisations communicate, and sometimes boast of inclusive values. Conversely, social inclusion is often defined by its apparent semantic opposite - social exclusion (Craig et al., 2007). Sherwin (2010) has shown on the other hand that social exclusion and inclusion are generally seen as having a binary and exclusive relationship - if people are not excluded, then by inference, they are included. This could lead organisational leaders to assume that when ‘protective’ mechanisms against exclusiveness are put in place, inclusive outcomes naturally follow. Most organisations fail to offer any processes to specifically include marginalised people or indeed put in place mechanisms to systematically identify and facilitate social inclusion, even when they do have high level disability strategies (Cobigo et al, 2012). This leaves matters of inclusion to the personal interpretation, or lack thereof, of individual frontline staff, often resulting in latent exclusion (World Bank, 2011). Statements that are not backed up with specific systems or protocols to implement inclusiveness are therefore, to a large extent ineffective, compounding the lack of effective tools to understand or measure inclusion (Lemay, 2006). Kendrick and Sullivan (2010) warn that the complex issue of social inclusion represents a substantial leadership challenge because it involves multi-faceted perspectives and concepts that elude straightforward measurement.
The current ‘Arts2Gether’ research, explored potential shifts in attitudes and behaviours of people, both disabled and mainstream, through participatory art: Artists of varied backgrounds gathered to create together and through these encounters, new experiences of togetherness fostered community integration. Following Rhodes’ call (2010) to take intentional steps to place relationships at the center of our social change agenda (Duffy & Murray, 2013), we were interested in finding out what elements of human relations may be at work in new encounters, that could, in turn impact relationship formation. Beyond impacting on the participants themselves, the Arts2Gether project sought to create a ripple effect transcending these encounters, generating knowledge to build change capacity for the long term. The intervention was underpinned by the Social Change model (Field et al, 2012, p.35) that seeks to “Increase the willingness of the community to engage with disabled people, Increase the willingness of disabled people to engage in the community and Increase the direct exposure of people with disabilities in the community”.