Effect of Supportive Relationships on School

Introduction

School participation (SP) and other forms of participation have been shown to be rather challenging for children with disabilities due to multiple barriers that still exist in schools, which are supposed to be inclusive (Anaby et al., 2013; Coster et al., 2013). At the same time, participation is not only beneficial for children; it is also one of their human rights (Egilson & Traustadottir, 2009, p. 264). As a result, specialists that work with children with disabilities have been searching for the means of improving the inclusiveness of their schools and fostering SP for their students. One of the features that can apparently have an effect on SP is supportive relationships (SR) (Colver et al., 2012, p. 2159), and the effects that SR can have on SP for children with disabilities is the focus of the present study.

The present paper offers a review of literature that can shed some light on the information that modern research has accumulated on the relationships between SR and SP with particular attention paid to the way SR can affect SP. The work includes a discussion of the methodology of the literature review and its limitations with a summary of the reviewed articles; the analysis of the key themes in the articles, the implications for future research and practice, and some conclusions that are based on the findings of the research. In particular, it is established that the present study seems to prove the previously raised concerns that there is a lack of studies that are devoted to the participation of children with disabilities and that there is some evidence to various types of SR being beneficial for SP, but more investigation could offer more extensive practical advice on SR and SP promotion.

Methodology and Limitations

The present study employs the methodology of a literature review. It reviews the studies that focus on, consider, or mention the three major topics of this paper: participation (preferably SP), SR, and children with disabilities. The study used the topics as keywords while searching for appropriate literature; as a result, twenty-three articles were considered acceptable for the review. It is noteworthy that not all of the papers reflect the topics to the same extent. Only four articles directly focus on SP while the majority of the works only consider it among other things. Another seven articles focus on SR; unfortunately, there is no article that focuses on both. Sixteen articles focus on children with disabilities, and another six works regard the topic very extensively while comparing SR and SP (or other participation types) for children with and without disabilities. Only one of the selected studies does not consider children with disabilities, but it does not exclude them and is included because of its extensive focus on relationships and SP. Four other studies are characterized by low attention to SP, and three of them consider participation in general; they were included because of their focus on SR and participation as well as children with disabilities. To sum up, some of the present articles contribute less information to the review that other ones.

Apart from that, the articles vary in their methods and samples, but the majority of them are based on interviews, questionnaires, surveys, observations, or a combination of these methods. Also, four articles offer a literature review, and case studies are used by two works. The samples range from three to over thousand children, parents, and social workers, which implies that some of the articles may also be more reliable due to larger samples. The table that is placed in Appendix A summarizes this information about the articles.

There are natural limitations to the present study. In particular, as pointed out by Booth, Papaioannou, and Sutton (2016), a literature review is significantly affected by the availability of the resources (including time). Also, the use of keywords can have its drawbacks in case some of the potentially relevant works use different terminology. To improve its quality (and avoid becoming non-systematic), the present study limits its scope to modern-day relevant literature (no articles older than 12 years are included), and it contains a short consideration of the strengths and limitations of the materials when relevant. According to Booth et al. (2016), these steps improve the quality of a literature review and make it more critical.

Supportive Relationships and School Participation for Children with and without Disabilities: Key Findings

The present section suggests the key information on SP and SR and their significance for the specialists who work with children with disabilities that can be gleaned from the reviewed materials.

Participation

Participation, participation restrictions, and SP are among the key terms of the paper, which is why they require specific discussion and definition. Eriksson (2005) emphasizes the fact that the term “participation” does not have a universally used definition; however, it can be referred to as the “involvement in a life situation” (p. 130). It is noteworthy that SP can be measured, and it is divided into three dimensions to this end: “frequency, involvement, and satisfaction” of participation can be assessed to make a conclusion about it (Coster et al., 2013, p. 539). Participation restrictions, therefore, is the term used to denote any issues in getting involved in life situations, which, for SP, include school situations (Bedell, Khetani, Cousins, Coster, & Law, 2011).

SP can be limited by some authors to educational activities (Egilson & Traustadottir, 2009, p. 265). However, Coster et al. (2013) views activities like school-supported clubs, field trips, interaction with peers outside of classroom activities, and the performance of “special roles at school” (for example, being a “classroom helper”) as other forms of SP (p. 538). Similarly, Eriksson, Welander, and Granlund (2007) mention “structured” and “unstructured” activities that occur in “school settings,” and the latter apparently include, among things, informal peer interactions (p. 490). In other words, any activity that occurs in school settings can be regarded as SP, and the present study uses this definition for the term.

The participation of children in various community-based activities improves their quality of life and fosters their development (Coster et al., 2013). Boer, Pijl, Post, and Minnaert (2012) also point out that a major argument for inclusive education is the idea that students with disabilities can learn from their peers, which is reflected in improved academic skills and, naturally, socialization opportunities (p. 832). This idea appears to have been proven by a number of studies from the previous and current century that Boer et al. (2012) cite (p. 832). Bourke and Burgman (2010) highlight the fact that participation needs to be fostered to help children socialize and develop related social roles, which directly related to supporting bullied children and reducing the negative effects of bullying (p. 361). In general, SP is clearly beneficial for children.

However, participation does not only have positive effects; it should also be regarded as a human right (MacArthur, 2013). This right was established in international agreements, including the Salamanca Statement by the UN; it is explicitly spelled out by Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Anaby et al., 2013, p. 1589; Colver et al., 2012; Egilson & Traustadottir, 2009, p. 264). In particular, Article 9 requires ensuring equal accessibility of environment, and Article 23 demands to guarantee that children with disabilities are provided with the opportunity for social participation. To sum up, ensuring the participation of children in various life situations is necessary.

Unfortunately, numerous studies indicate that the participation of children with disabilities does not always correspond to that of children without disabilities (Anaby et al., 2013; Coster et al., 2013; Eriksson, Welander, & Granlund, 2007), which is not only harmful to the former but also presupposes the violation of their human rights. For example, Coster et al. (2013) found that about 31% of parents of children without disabilities reported low participation in certain school activities for their children while 62% of the parents of the students with disabilities offered a similar complaint. The information makes Coster et al. (2013) imply that interventions that are aimed at SP increase are required for both groups of children, but the children with disabilities are clearly at a greater disadvantage (p. 539). At the same time, Anaby et al. (2013) and Boer, Pijl, Post, and Minnaert (2012) highlight the fact that participation is especially important for the development and rehabilitation of disabled children. As a result, the problem of ensuring and fostering the SP of children with disabilities appears to be most acute.

Supportive Relationships

SR can be regarded as a type of relationships that offers support for children in a variety of situations (Bourke & Burgman, 2010; Piškur et al. (2012). There are different types of SR, and they are most often considered from the point of view of the participants of a relationship. Piškur et al. (2012) focus on parental SR (that is, the SR between a parent and a child). Anaby et al. (2013) and King et al. (2009) also mention family (not limited to parents), friend, and classroom (peer and teacher) support. Apart from that, Anaby et al. (2013) introduce physical and psychological SR. This classification can be regarded as another form of distinction that considers the type of support rather than the participants of relationships. Unfortunately, Anaby et al. (2013) do not discuss any types of SR at length.

The Effect of Supportive Relationships of Different Types on School Participation

The Existence of an Effect

The factors that affect participation and SP are rather numerous, but Anaby et al. (2013), Boer et al. (2012), Eriksson (2005), Kiuru et al. (2012), Piškur et al. (2012), and others point out that a predictor of the participation patterns of children with disabilities is supportive relationships (SR). In general, the existence of the effect of SR on SP does not appear to be questionable. However, the results of a study by Colver et al. (2012) might question their importance.

Colver et al. (2012) carried out a questionnaire-based study with the sample of 818 children with disabilities (the questionnaires were completed by parents with the help of researchers), which proved the idea that the participation of children with disabilities tends to be greatly affected by the environment, which includes supportive relationships. Among other things, their findings indicated that supportive relationships had a relatively small and indirect effect on participation, which was mediated by personal qualities and states of children (p. 2159). It is important, however, that the authors did not focus on a particular type of participation, and while they included SP (p. 2155), the consideration of other forms of participation may have affected the results. Also, the authors consider only children with cerebral palsy, which also makes the results non-generalizable with respect to other forms of disability. Still, the results of the study suggest that more information on the effects of SR on SP should be provided.

Unfortunately, other present sources do not attempt to measure the extent of the effect that SR can have on SP. However, many of the articles emphasize the importance of this effect. As pointed by Law, Petrenchik, King, and Hurley (2007), the promotion of caring relationships is typically expected to reduce barriers and encourage children to participate in various activities (here, the authors focus on peer relationships) (p. 1637). Anaby et al. (2013) consider SR as a part of the environmental factors that can affect school participation. Palisano et al. (2010) review the case of children with cerebral palsy, and their study includes a large sample of 288 children and their parents, who were interviewed or responded to questionnaires. The authors consider recreational and leisure activities, but they also briefly mention SP. They make a conclusion about family SR as a positive influence on children’s participation since, according to their results, this kind of SR provides “children with opportunities and experiences” (Palisano et al., 2010, 143). In general, their results indicate that a supportive familial environment is a major factor in increasing the intensity of child participation (p. 147).

Similarly, the study by Bedell et al. (2011) shows that parents consider a number of factors to modify the possibility of their children’s SP, including personal and environmental (social and physical) ones. The parents report that ensuring parental SR is among the strategies that promote SP in their children. Palisano et al. (2011) carry out a literature review and a case study to consider the way participation-based therapy can be used to rehabilitate children with physical disabilities, which includes their increased participation in a variety of contexts. In this context, participation (including SP) is regarded as one of the outcomes of rehabilitation while SRs are included as some of its predictors (Palisano et al., 2011; pp. 1042, 1049, 1050). In other words, the study by Palisano et al. (2011) provides theoretical background and one practical example that shows a positive correlation between SR and SP. However, it is noteworthy that the author focuses on the relationships between the practitioner and the child and that SR is only one of the factors of the therapy. Hansen, Siame, Siame, and Van der Veen (2014) also show that mothers tend to report peer SR as a factor that facilitates participation for their children (p. 4). Hansen et al. (2014) carry out in-depth semi-structured interviews with mothers and also demonstrate that parental support is of crucial importance for child participation, showing that the mothers are resourceful enough to employ various internal and external factors to overcome the barriers.

To sum up, while the extent of the effects of SR on SP may remain unclear with only one article suggesting that it is indirect, most of the reviewed studies regard it as existing and significant and prove this significance through theory and research.

Positive or Negative

Coster et al. (2013) specifically consider relationships among a variety of barriers and supports to SP in a study that was carried out in Canada and the US. The paper incorporates the findings from questionnaires, which gathered information from 576 parents of children and youngsters with and without disabilities. Apart from clearly showing that children with disabilities are less likely to participate in school activities, the study demonstrated that physical and social environment could contain barriers to SP, including social demands and attitudes as well as peer relationships. At the same time, the results indicate that the same factors can be helpful in certain instances.

In general, the analysis of Coster et al. (2013) suggests that relationships as such can be both harmful and beneficial for SP, but SRs are directly beneficial. The study by Coster et al. (2013) has the limitation of being based on the perceptions of parents rather than children, and it may be not applicable to the contexts outside of the studied countries, but its findings correlate with those of other works in the field and allow making tentative suggestions on the topic of the present review. However, other articles demonstrate that the impacts of SR can be more multilayered.

For example, Woodfield and Ashby (2015) consider the case of children who type to communicate and have autism. Their sample is very small (three students), but they use longitudinal observation and in-depth interviews, which provides insights into the situation, even though the outcomes should not be regarded as particularly generalizable. One of the findings of the study demonstrates that the students perceive their relationships with teaching assistants as crucial for their success, but they also describe these relationships as complex and multi-layered. In particular, one of them reports that it is possible to become dependent on the assistant rather than grow independent and capable of interacting on one’s own. The student suggests that if the relationships are respectful and professional, the issue can be avoided, but this element of the effects of SR on SP needs to be taken into account.

A similar point is made by Carter et al. (2013). The authors demonstrate that the intervention of adults tends to be negatively correlated with peer SR, which seems to be explained by the fact that during secondary school years, children’s interactions begin to occur more often outside of adults’ supervision (Carter et al., 2013, p. 52). Similarly, Eriksson et al. (2007) show that teachers tend to provide more support to children with disabilities while these children are less likely to solicit and gain support from their peers than children without disabilities and generally be involved in peer activities (p. 499). The authors suggest that excessive teacher support can result in this form of distancing from peers.

If SP is not limited to educational participation, this conclusion implies that teacher SR can negatively affect SP by preventing children from developing peer SR. However, as pointed out by Eriksson et al. (2007), the SP of children with disabilities is more dependent on support and SR than that of children without disabilities. As a result, the task of teachers and other specialists who work with children with disabilities becomes more complicated and appears to consist of finding a balance between supporting children with disabilities and creating the opportunities for developing SR with their peers (Carter et al., 2013).

Finally, it is noteworthy that the relationship between SR and SP appears to be reciprocal in a certain way. Improved SP opens opportunities for the development of peer SR, which, in turn, fosters SP (Carter et al., 2013). Moreover, Kiuru et al. (2012) report that SP decrements can result in peer rejection (prevention of peer SR), which may be worsened by a lower academic performance that can be the result of the initially decreased SP. Therefore, the two phenomena tend to enter interrelationships with each other and some additional factors, in which they both are likely to maintain each other’s presence or absence.

To sum up, the effects that SR can have on SP can be both positive and negative (depending on the type of SR and SP), and SP, in turn, can also affect SR. Apart from that, the phenomena tend to enter a form of complex interrelationship where the presence of SP is fostered by and fosters SR while the absence of SP can result in decreased SR, which, in turn, can further decrease SR. When discovered, this interrelationship can be used for the benefit of children, for example, through the creation of opportunities for increased SP, which can promote SR (Carter et al., 2013).

Specific Effects: The Importance of SR

General positive effect on SP. Anaby et al. (2013) show that SR of parents and friends have a particularly strong influence on SP. Piškur et al. (2012), on the other hand, consider parental support at length and demonstrate that it can have positive effects on SP. Hansen et al. (2014) similarly emphasize the significance of parental SR. Anaby et al. (2013) highlight the fact that both psychosocial and psychological support are significant for SP, but they do not try to compare their effects. King et al. (2009) discuss multiple types of SR and their contribution to changes in SP. Woodfield and Ashby (2015) demonstrate that students feel more secure and successful at SP in case they have a trusting SR with their teaching assistant. In general, the evidence to SR of different types being beneficial for SP is very extensive in recent and less recent articles.

Peer rejection. Aston, Breau, and MacLeod (2014) point out that children with disabilities can experience marginalization, but they also highlight the fact that SR can minimize such experiences. Similarly, as shown by Elledge, Elledge, Newgent, and Cavell (2015), peer rejection is harmful in a variety of ways, which include the possibility of victimization of the rejected; the author’s study appears to demonstrate that the relationship between rejection and victimization is distinct. Elledge et al. (2015) use a decent sample (361 students) and gather the data from teachers, peers, and students on victimizations; as a result, Elledge et al. (2015) indicate that student-teacher relationships can “buffer” victimization issues (p. 699). The authors also suggest that teachers are more active in protecting children from victimization if they are engaged in SR with these children (Elledge et al., 2015, p. 700). Similarly, Kiuru et al. (2012) demonstrate that SR in the classroom can affect peer rejection or, at least, reduce the detrimental effects that can cause peer rejection and serve as a protection against them.

Bourke and Burgman (2010) focus on bullying, which they consider from in terms of SR for children with disabilities. The sample of the work is rather small (only 10 children), but it indicates that talking to a trusted person is a useful mechanism that helps to cope with bullying and promotes social participation (Bourke & Burgman, 2010, pp. 365-366). It is noteworthy that both peer and adult SR were characterized as helpful, but the participants specifically point out the relationships and support that can be gained from other children with disabilities (Bourke & Burgman, 2010, p. 366). To sum up, SR does not only foster SP, but it also helps to diminish the detrimental effects of the lack of SP.

Implications for Practice and Advocacy

Fostering SR

Given the fact that SR is typically regarded as a phenomenon that can improve participation, it appears logical that specialists should search for the means of fostering SR. The present research demonstrates that it is true, and several sources can be used to offer multiple solutions. For example, the work by Aston et al. (2014) targets SR with specialists, and it emerges from a study with the sample of 17 mothers, 8 children with intellectual disabilities, and 12 nurses, which implies that the sample is not very large. However, the format of semi-structured interviews allows gaining extensive information from every encounter. All adult participants reported the understanding of the significance of SR for children, but some of them also provided examples of healthcare professionals failing to prioritize SR establishment. Some of the nurses suggested that the reasons for this issue might include the lack of resources, especially time, and excessive workload while others pointed out that efforts at establishing connections can be made even in the case of limited time. A key method of SR establishment was determined as communication, predominantly oral, which can be facilitated for nurses by parents.

Similarly, Raghavendra, Olsson, Sampson, Mcinerney, and Connell (2012) carried out an observational study that included 39 children and youngsters, part of which had “physical disabilities and complex communication needs.” Additional information was gathered with the help of interviews. The authors suggest that SRs are likely to improve children’s participation, but they also focus on the barriers to the development of SR, including environmental and personal ones. In particular, the authors point out that supports, which are provided to students with varied disabilities tend to affect their relationships with adults and family members to a greater extent, while peer relationships are more difficult to develop (pp. 40-41). As a form of a solution, they suggest developing more opportunities for meaningful peer interactions and ensuring the existence of interventions that promote access to school activities for children with different disabilities.

Kiuru et al. (2012) discuss the way a supportive classroom climate can foster peer SR (or, rather, prevent peer rejection) for children with reading disabilities, ranking it as one of the most effective factors. A similar discussion is carried out by Eriksson (2005), even though the author expands the topic to the school environment for children and youths with various disabilities. Eriksson (2005) does not find any statistically significant correlation between participation and environment or supportive activities (which may include SR but are focused on interventions like the availability of an assistant or, for example, hearing aids), but, naturally, participation is greatly affected by the availability of the opportunities for participation.

The work by Carter et al. (2013) is also directed at making suggestions for the development of peer SR. The work is very practice-oriented, and it can be regarded as a report on a three-year-long project, which involved testing and implementing the peer network framework, which is discussed below. The authors offer a number of salient guidelines for the development of the context for peer SR, which is dependent on the teacher and includes facilitation in introductions and challenging situations (for example, teaching students on how to communicate with a person with hearing disability), the creation of opportunities to communicate (that would benefit from being enjoyable activities), and the active development of social skills. The authors also praise the possibility of the development of peer networks, which can be defined as a small group of students that includes children with and without disabilities (no more than six people) who are encouraged by a teacher to meet formally and informally to engage in enjoyable activities, which should provide some practice for social skills. The teacher is supposed to provide initial guidance which should help the children to get to know each other and help them to practice social skills. Also, the teacher should maintain the network and encourage a variety of helpful activities. The authors report that this framework has been successful in creating SP opportunities for children with not very severe disabilities; this aspect of the work can be regarded as a limitation.

Similarly, Sheras and Bradshaw (2016) consider supportive relationships when discussing a review of programs that can be implemented in school context to improve school environment from the point of view of its positive influence on child development. They suggest the framework of social and emotional learning, which offers schoolwide programs that consider supportive relationships and engagement to be crucial for the learning process, and exemplify it with the “Caring School Community Program,” which have been proved to be regarded as beneficial by students and staff.

To sum up, a number of programs, methods, and general advice on improving SR has been developed by modern specialists. Such advice that is provided by people with theoretical knowledge and experience can be used for educational materials that would be employed for training personnel that works with children with disabilities. However, it is apparent that the mentioned barriers also include those caused by more systemic issues (the lack of time because of understaffing), which can only be resolved at the level of the system.

Fostering SP

As was demonstrated above, SP and SR have a mutual interrelationship, which suggests that fostering SP through means other than SR is beneficial for SR, SP, and for children in general. In order to foster SP, one needs to take into account the multiple barriers to SP that exist in modern schools (Woodfield & Ashby, 2015). For example, Law et al. (2007) carried out a cross-sectional study that included parents and children (229 boys and 198 girls) aged 6-14 with various physical disabilities with the aim of discussing barriers to the participation of children in a variety of activities, including SP. Due to the focus on barriers, the authors demonstrate that unsupportive environments are a barrier for children with disabilities. However, the authors do not discuss specific solutions to the issue.

Apart from that, one of the articles suggests fostering SR with the help of fostering SP through environmental solutions. MacArthur (2013) mentions SR in the context of SP, using the example of school playgrounds (p. 799). The author highlights the fact that school playgrounds are often perceived as threatening by children with disabilities, which limits their opportunities for socialization. The author makes a conclusion about the development of inclusive playgrounds that ensure the safety of children with disabilities. When discussing how the effect can be achieved, the author suggests, among other things, to pay attention to children’s views, respect them, their rights, and their agency, and to ensure the competence of teachers. MacArthur (2013) also highlights the significance of SR for participation in school activities (p. 806), but the author predominantly focuses on the barriers to SR. It can be suggested that the authors realize the interrelationship between SR and SP and offer advice on employing for children’s benefit.

Other Support

Bedell et al. (2011), Boer et al. (2012), and Hansen et al. (2014) suggest actively involving parents in the discussions on the measures that can be used to foster SR. However, Piškur et al. (2012) expand the topic and discuss parental SR (that is, the SR between a parent and a child) at length with a particular focus on the actual practice of support that is typically provided by parents to children with physical disabilities. The primary conclusion of the authors is that parents are capable of supporting children with disabilities in their SP and other activities through performing “meaningful activities,” which include choosing activities for a child (for example, physical activities that support a child’s health) as well as modifying them (that is, adapting them instead of choosing) (Piškur et al., 2012, p. 7). Other “meaningful activities” include structuring the day of a child and educating them. Apart from that, the authors mention the ability of parents to work with the environment through advocacy, education, development of connections with people, who can provide support, and creating opportunities. To sum up, Piškur et al. (2012) show that parents are a meaningful force that has multiple means of supporting children with disabilities.

Apart from that, Piškur et al. (2012) report that there are certain barriers and challenges to parental SR. Concerning the challenging aspects, they include the choices related to the situation (for example, the choice of appropriate activities and education), the need to ensure the safety of a child with disability and being supportive. The barriers include financial and environmental ones including the physical environment, people’s attitudes, and the existence and availability of social services. Finally, the authors point out that the parents have needs, especially the need for information, service, equipment, and support. Piškur et al. (2012) suggest that the fulfillment of these needs is likely to help parents in enacting parental SR, which hints at the need for advocacy.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

The primary limitations of the provided studies include their methodology and samples. Surveys, questionnaires, and interviews are subject to bias; apart from that, several articles used questionnaires and interviews to gain information from parents who may be insufficiently familiar with their children’s perceptions of SP. As for the sample, one of the interview-based works has the sample of three people, another one of four people, and another one of ten people. These articles may offer insights into the events, but they have a very limited generalizability. Apart from that, the articles also focus on different disabilities, which also may restrict the application of their findings.

Another limitation of the current literature review is that most of the works mention SP, SR or apply the concepts to children with disability in a rather superficial way, without concentrating on them. Indeed, it is apparent that the majority of the works do not focus on only one factor of participation or relationships (that is, SP and SR) and tend to provide a more extensive picture. This finding does appear to indicate that the topic of the relationship between SP and SR is relatively underrepresented in modern and earlier literature; however, it also demonstrates a tendency for a more comprehensive view on the challenge of SP for children with disabilities. In fact, Egilson and Traustadottir (2009) point out that a confluence of a variety of factors needs to be taken into account in practice. Indeed, in practice, a child is more likely to benefit from a comprehensive approach; however, the understanding of the elements of this approach may require a more extensive study of the impact of SRs on SP.

The idea that the topic is underrepresented in modern literature can be supported by the views of other authors. Webster and Carter (2007) suggest, for example, that the topic of the relationships between children with disabilities (in particular, developmental disabilities) and their peers seems to be lacking, especially when compared to similar studies of children without disabilities (p. 210). This article is not very recent, which implies that the situation could have changed, but the current literature review does not contradict the authors. Similarly, Colver et al. (2012) suggest that “little is known about participation of disabled children” (p. 2154). Elledge et al. (2015) point out that the research on the correlation between teacher-student relationships and children victimization is lacking.

Apart from that, Webster and Carter (2007) suggest that there are multiple limitations to the literature devoted to peer relationships that were carried out in the last decades of the previous century and the beginning of the current one. The authors indicate that the studies tended to be limited by sampling (especially by the lack of diversity in them) and to rarely specify the type of disabilities or provide findings specifically for kinds or groups of disabilities, which, in the view of Webster and Carter (2007) broadens the scope too much. The authors also suggested that at the time, little attention was paid to inclusive settings, which had become a preferred form of education for children with disabilities by then. To sum up, the idea about the lack of research on SR and SP in children with disabilities does not seem far-fetched. The conclusion needs to be made cautiously given the limitations of the current literature review, but the recommendation for additional research on the topic seems to be in order.

Other related topics also seem to be underrepresented. Piškur et al. (2012) point out that their literature review indicates that barriers to SR, especially in the field of parental needs, are relatively understudied. Aston et al. (2014) demonstrate the fact that the development of SR with various people, including parents and healthcare professionals, can be a difficult process, which might be disrupted and needs additional research. As a result, the exploration of the presented and other methods of SR fostering and the related topic of barriers to SR seems to be a viable direction for future research as well.

Finally, it is noteworthy that while the importance of supportive relationships of various kinds is established by multiple studies, the specific methods of fostering them are less likely to be discussed. For example, Law et al. (2007) mention the fact that social environments that promote “caring relationships” foster participation (including SP), but they do not discuss the way this promotion can be enabled (p. 1637). Naturally, such an outcome results from the aims of the studies that do not specifically aim to investigate how to promote SR; Law et al. (2007), for example, attempt to identify barriers rather than investigate their reasons and the means of bringing them down. Despite this fact, a gap in research appears to be visible, and it can be regarded as another possible direction for future research found by the current study.

Conclusion

The presented literature review considers twenty-three articles that were deemed acceptable for the research due to their focus or consideration of the topics of SP and SR with relation to children with disabilities. It is noteworthy that none of the articles actually focuses on all the three of the topics, and many of them focus predominantly on one or two with others being considered among other things. As a result, some of the articles provide less information on the specific topic of the literature review. Still, the following conclusions can be made with their help.

SR and SP are found to be in an interrelationship that is too complex to be one-sided. In general, the effects of SR on SP are existent, even though their extent is not very well researched. However, these effects can be both positive and negative depending on the specific types of SR and SP. Apart from that, the two phenomena can be engaged in reciprocal relationship, which is also complicated by external elements. In this relationship, they tend to foster each other’s absence or presence, which is a fact that can be used for practical interventions.

Due to the fact that different studies focused on different disabilities, the majority of advice that can be gleaned from the review is rather general. Still, it apparently includes specific approaches and models (like the peer network approach), the advice to investigate particular environmental barriers and remove them (in order to foster SP, which will result in SR that will promote SP further), and the call for advocacy with respect to a number of systemic barriers (for example, understaffing).

Finally, the research demonstrates that there are multiple gaps in the research on the specific topic of the study and related ones. Therefore, the suggestion for further investigation of the relationships between SR and SP should be able to produce more practical advice, including customized solutions for particular disabilities.

References

Anaby, D., Hand, C., Bradley, L., DiRezze, B., Forhan, M., DiGiacomo, A., & Law, M. (2013). The effect of the environment on participation of children and youth with disabilities: a scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(19), 1589-1598. Web.

Aston, M., Breau, L., & MacLeod, E. (2014). Understanding the importance of relationships: Perspective of children with intellectual disabilities, their parents, and nurses in Canada. Journal Of Intellectual Disabilities, 18(3), 221-237. Web.

Bedell, G., Khetani, M., Cousins, M., Coster, W., & Law, M. (2011). Parent perspectives to inform development of measures of children’s participation and environment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(5), 765-773. Web.

Boer, A., Pijl, S., Post, W., & Minnaert, A. (2012). Peer acceptance and friendships of students with disabilities in general education: The role of child, peer, and classroom variables. Social Development, 22(4), 831–844. Web.

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). New York, NY: SAGE.

Bourke, S., & Burgman, I. (2010). Coping with bullying in Australian schools: how children with disabilities experience support from friends, parents and teachers. Disability & Society, 25(3), 359-371. Web.

Carter, E., Asmus, J., Moss, C., Cooney, M., Weir, K., & Vincent, L.,…Fesperman, E. (2013). Peer network strategies to foster social connections among adolescents with and without severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(2), 51-59. Web.

Colver, A., Thyen, U., Arnaud, C., Beckung, E., Fauconnier, J., & Marcelli, M., … Dickinson, H. (2012). Association between participation in life situations of children with cerebral palsy and their physical, social, and attitudinal environment: A cross-sectional multicenter European study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(12), 2154-2164. Web.

Coster, W., Law, M., Bedell, G., Liljenquist, K., Kao, Y., Khetani, M., & Teplicky, R. (2013). School participation, supports and barriers of students with and without disabilities. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39(4), 535-543. Web.

Egilson, S., & Traustadottir, R. (2009). Participation of students with physical disabilities in the school environment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(3), 264-272. Web.

Elledge, L., Elledge, A., Newgent, R., & Cavell, T. (2015). Social risk and peer victimization in elementary school children: The protective role of teacher-student relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(4), 691-703. Web.

Eriksson, L. (2005). The relationship between school environment and participation for students with disabilities. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 8(2), 130-139. Web.

Eriksson, L., Welander, J., & Granlund, M. (2007). Participation in everyday school activities for children with and without disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19(5), 485-502. Web.

Hansen, A. M. W., Siame, M., & Van der Veen, J. (2014). A qualitative study: Barriers and support for participation for children with disabilities. African Journal of Disability, 3(1), 1-9. Web.

King, G., McDougall, J., DeWit, D., Petrenchik, T., Hurley, P., & Law, M. (2009). Predictors of change over time in the activity participation of children and youth with physical disabilities. Children’s Health Care, 38(4), 321-351. Web.

Kiuru, N., Poikkeus, A., Lerkkanen, M., Pakarinen, E., Siekkinen, M., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi, J. (2012). Teacher-perceived supportive classroom climate protects against detrimental impact of reading disability risk on peer rejection. Learning And Instruction, 22(5), 331-339. Web.

Law, M., Petrenchik, T., King, G., & Hurley, P. (2007). Perceived environmental barriers to recreational, community, and school participation for children and youth with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(12), 1636-1642. Web.

MacArthur, J. (2013). Sustaining friendships, relationships, and rights at school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 793-811. Web.

Palisano, R., Chiarello, L., King, G., Novak, I., Stoner, T., & Fiss, A. (2011). Participation-based therapy for children with physical disabilities. Disability And Rehabilitation, 34(12), 1041-1052. Web.

Palisano, R., Chiarello, L., Orlin, M., Oeffinger, D., Polansky, M., & Maggs, J., … Gorton, G. (2010). Determinants of intensity of participation in leisure and recreational activities by children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 53(2), 142-149. Web.

Piškur, B., Beurskens, A., Jongmans, M., Ketelaar, M., Norton, M., & Frings, C.,…Smeets, R. (2012). Parents’ actions, challenges, and needs while enabling participation of children with a physical disability: a scoping review. BMC Pediatrics, 12(1). Web.

Raghavendra, P., Olsson, C., Sampson, J., Mcinerney, R., & Connell, T. (2012). School participation and social networks of children with complex communication needs, physical disabilities, and typically developing peers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(1), 33-43. Web.

Sheras, P., & Bradshaw, C. (2016). Fostering policies that enhance positive school environment. Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 129-135. Web.

Webster, A., & Carter, M. (2007). Social relationships and friendships of children with developmental disabilities: Implications for inclusive settings. A systematic review. Journal of Intellectual And Developmental Disability, 32(3), 200-213. Web.

Woodfield, C., & Ashby, C. (2015). ‘The right path of equality’: supporting high school students with autism who type to communicate. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(4), 435-454. Web.