Social Space Orientation and Inclusion

Introduction to Topic

Social space is a complex concept which encompasses space, dynamic interactions and relationships, and shapes how individuals experience and navigate their social      surroundings . Social spaces can take the form of any physical space such as school,      playgrounds , parks, libraries, shopping centres, restaurants, sports fields, and entertainment centres. Castells (2020) noted how our conception of “space” changes with the development of technology, where the speed of communication and information soliciting is becoming instantaneous (LeGates & Stout, 2020). Such changes redefine the context of physical spaces in architecture and urbanism and consequently, spaces, and their engagement, become less defined. Rather than define it within physical spaces only, we approach the concept with a more reflexive concept of social space as a ‘space’ where people have opportunities to come together to interact. This is not to suggest that they lack contextual boundaries, rather the spaces are more reflexive in how interactions are observed. Inclusion and inclusivity in the social space are reflected in how people engage, interact, and relate with others and, the environment, and relate to broader societal structures.

Maybe add some basic information on what is meant with “social space” ? Maybe not all readers have heard about the concept of “social space” before?

For me, this would be a perfect introductory explanation of what social spaces can be.

Key aspects

The chapter addresses social spaces through the main elements presented with consideration to interaction with centrality to the self : such as the lifespan, power dynamics and structural disadvantage. The central theme focuses on the aspect of relativity, where the individual is the main component? Critics of social spaces often fail to be inclusive even when attempts have been made to make a space inclusive. Literature on cognitive studies draws focus heavily on the relativity of interaction and with it, the spaces (Raven, 2020). When considerations of space solely focus on physical attributes, the people and interactions that make, and give space meaning,  are often forgotten (Kusch, 2019). In the case studies presented, we intentionally choose to represent individuals across different life stages, highlighting the benefits and challenging the myths of inclusion. Each aspect is further illustrated through vignettes and case studies as a means to invite readers to engage with the concepts personally. The role of inclusive social spaces, and how interactions exist in that space, cannot be underestimated.

Lifespan Development

Erikson outlined eight stages of development from cradle to grave (Overstreet, 2023), and while these stages were widely used, pre-natal development was added to the nature/nurture discourse in date? (Newman & Newman, 2012; Overstreet, 2023). The development stages included:

• Prenatal; prenatal development and birth
• Infancy; up to 24 months,
• Early childhood; 2 to 6 years
• Middle childhood; 6 to 11 year
• Adolescence; 12 to 20 years
• Early adulthood; 21 to 34 years
• Middle adulthood; 34 to 50 years
• Late adulthood; 51 to 60 years
• Death and Dying; 61 to death

It is important to note that these stages are approximate and subject to different experiential elements within each construct (Newman & Newman, 2012; Overstreet, 2023). Nevertheless, they are informative of the social spaces that one will encounter as they develop over a normative life course. In infancy, one would encounter caregivers as the primary engagement elements while in early childhood one will be exposed to others like themselves. In middle childhood, one would be exposed to a schooling environment while in early adulthood one would engage with the work environment, and so on. Recognising the developmental needs of an individual in the life space determines the format and types of interaction that will take place. Interactions and spaces exist that individuals can choose to engage in, but there are also interactions and spaces that are imposed on individuals in everyday social situations. In childcare (at the infant stage), we play with other individuals who may, or may not, have similar interests. In a school setting (at the adolescent stage), we may have to work with peers we do not like, and we encounter the wider online digital spaces. When we reach adulthood, we behave in work environments where our moral stance may be challenged. In old age, we seek control where, if a lack of control occurs, we may withdraw from interactions.

Raven (2020) focuses on how individuals form awareness and make meaning of a space, which is very much grounded in the purpose and engagement of the space. As humans develop over our lifespan, the meaning and engagement of space change (Fingerman, 2011). A school may be an educational space for students, but it is an employment space for teachers. While space may be bounded and defined physically, in a relative context, its attributes and purpose are interaction-vested (Kusch, 2019). In discussions where space is subjectively contextualised, any discussion of space quickly retracts back into subjectivity.  Any subjective discussion of space in this regard may be too theoretical?  as even in identical spaces, interactions will not happen in the same manner due to a variety of conditions/elements? Rather than restrict discussion at the physical spatial level, perhaps attention should be focused on the most constant element of any human mechanism: the people.

Life span Development and the Social Space

As individuals develop across their lifespans, their social space grows and shrinks in tandem (Lerner et al., 2010; Fingerman, 2011). Human beings live in social and cultural contexts where behaviour and cognition are formed through interactional exchanges. These interactional exchanges enable individuals to learn mechanisms of behaviours that either foster or dissuade the connections we seek. In infancy, we seek attachment with others in our immediate surroundings, while in adolescence we seek affirmation from peers. When we reach adulthood, we seek intimate relations which continue through to old age, where often what we seek is the culmination of our experiences accumulated over our life course (Lang & Fingerman, 2004; Lerner et al., 2010; Qualter et al., 2015). Our need for social interaction changes the context of social space in that we enmesh ourselves in, and with, spaces in which we are the most engaged  . The neurological feedback generated as a result of purposeful engagement informs whether a foster or dissuade approach is taken: foster when we like it, dissuade when we do not (Lerner et al., 2010). The consideration of social space thus becomes a concern as a multitude of elements combine to form a defined space in the ever-evolving society. These elements include not just the physical space but also the actors within each space: the people.

Purposeful Engagement

The working definition of space now includes a focus on interactions as the primary identifier. We intentionally moved away from the physical attribution of space and suggest that interaction occurs beyond the physical context of social space in a modern-day context, to one where different elements require consideration. In other words, the contextual elements involved in inclusion emphasise the role of purposeful inclusion, rather than functional inclusion, which only engages at a more superficial level. In the ‘The Street Life Project’ directed by Whyte between 1969 and 1975, it was shown that neither the size or shape of a park or plaza explained why people chose to use it but seating space, water, sunlight, food vendors, and easy access made a substantial difference (in LeGates & Stout, 2020). This was largely based on the purpose of utilisation rather than aesthetics. True inclusion should account for purposeful engagement rather than superficial physical providence which can create exclusion even in an inclusive space.

Drawing from the following vignette of a 60-year-old semi-retired elderly lady, the context of control and purpose is particularly evident.

Research on purposeful engagement highlights the associations between psychological well-being and health which implies a mind-body connection mediated via the neural circuits in the brain (Ryff et al., 2016). Such research highlights the importance of purposeful engagement and their contribution to acute and sustained neural responses which are essential to well-     being  . Even when a physical space is only designed for a specific purpose, an interactionist aspect to the space gives its more meaning. Bruin (2020) drew upon this concept in education policies (where?) in understanding the need to consider the perspective of all learners. No matter how inclusive we design a space to be, it must take into account the users’ needs or else risks being arbitrarily delegatory . Carpentier (2016) also noted how education management must understand that participation, interaction, and access are very different concepts. Meaningless participation not only does not contribute to inclusion, but it also creates a false sense of inclusion that instead expands exclusion at an unconscious level. Much of these invisible exclusions over time become normative and taken for granted.

Invisible Exclusion

Aligning the concept with inclusion means considering countless different perspectives. While inclusion and exclusion are measured and defined differently across contexts, many agree on concepts of rejection and      ostracism . In terms of ostracism, the context of being ignored in an inclusive space is an increasing concern. Research notes how reframing and re-imagination of exclusion with more expansive sociological indicators better accounts for its address. This context engages with the notion of exclusion even in inclusive spaces, where if an individual may not be directly ignored, any type of social exclusion increases the feelings of being ignored (Wesselmann et al., 2016). The context of invisible exclusion is more well-developed in subjects of gender and intersectionality studies (Settles et al., 2020; Tan & DeFrank-Cole, 2023). While inclusive practices are often conscious decisions and attempts to create a safer environment, an often-unconscious result is the creation of exclusion in less aware domains. A simple example could be observed in how teachers conduct group work in a classroom. Are all individuals in the group contributing or is any individual not meaningfully involved? How can task design better create an environment where everyone is engaged meaningfully? Teachers need to be aware of the hidden, or unconscious, creation of exclusion in the classroom.

• How can dynamics of interaction be both inclusive and exclusive at the same time in the classroom?

Resistance to Inclusion

Another hurdle to inclusion is the resistance that is encountered by existing users of the space in which changes are often accorded (Settles et al., 2020). The following presents an interview with Ms Jacelyn Lim, Executive Director of Autism Resource Centre, Singapore, on engaging with the Enabling Village:

The concept that the Enabling Village engages and explores natural and purposeful engagement rather than the traditional approach to inclusion. While traditional approaches to inclusion seek to ‘make’ a physical space inclusive, the enabling village adopts the working principle that ‘purpose’ is in nature, neither inclusive nor exclusive, but rather met or not. From this outlook, the purpose is normative and natural regardless of the attributes of all involved (e.g. buying coffee ~ I came to buy coffee ~ coffee is sold). In both organisational and educational research, resistance to inclusion is often met when systems are required to change unnaturally (Gallegos et al., 2008; Bruin, 2020). Unnatural in the sense that changes or interventions do not serve a functional purpose but instead create another layer of considerations. While it may be more basic in less complex systems, interventions in complex systems may require too many operational mechanics to change to adapt to inclusion (Gallegos et al., 2008). In purposeful engagement, the consideration should not be that of only individuals with needs but also other / all individuals included in the interaction. Where interactions are natural and value-added, not only will less resistance be met, but success factors will also increase. Teachers need to capture and illuminate the value of inclusion to dispel the myths and misconceptions of inclusion.

Power Dynamics

In discussions about inclusivity within social spaces, the orientation and organisation of the physical space is often the focus of attention. While physical accessibility is important, the power dynamics between social actors frequently exert a more profound influence on the inclusivity of a space. Understanding these power dynamics is crucial for creating social spaces where all individuals feel a sense of belonging. In this section, we will look at how inclusion within social spaces depends not just on the physical accessibility and design of an environment, but on the power dynamics at play.

Power dynamics refer to the ways in which power is distributed and exercised within social interactions. According to Foucault (1980) , power is not merely held but is relational and pervasive, embedded within social norms, practices, and institutions. In any given social setting, such as educational, professional, or familial, power dynamics shape the nature and accessibility of interactions for participation. Power can be clearly visible, such as through formal authority, or it can be subtle, generated through informal social norms and expectations (Giddens, 1984) . In a classroom, for example, power dynamics are visible in the authority held by the teacher and the varying dominant and passive positionings of students. Teachers typically hold significant influence over classroom activities, decision-making and the establishment of social norms. This authority can impact on the students’ feelings of inclusion or exclusion, depending on how the teacher interacts with and values their voice.

Power dynamics are pivotal in determining the inclusivity of a social space. The influence of these dynamics travel beyond the design of the physical space by affecting the interpersonal interactions and decision-making processes of social actors. For instance, decision-making power often rests with individuals or groups who hold formal or informal authority. These decision-makers have the ability to set rules, distribute resources, and shape social norms. When those in power prioritise their own interests or the interests of a dominant group over others, they may indirectly marginalise others as being less powerful. This dynamic can lead to systemic exclusion, where certain voices and needs are consistently overlooked. For instance, research on educational settings by Ball (2012) highlights how institutional power can influence which students’ needs are addressed and which are ignored, thereby affecting the overall inclusivity of the environment. According to Bourdieu (1986), those with more power often control the flow of information and the validation of ideas. If powerful individuals, such as educators or managers, do not actively listen to and engage with the perceived less dominant voices of social spaces, it can create an environment where only certain contributions are recognised and valued, reinforcing feelings of exclusion among those who are marginalised. These feelings of exclusion and isolation then become socially normalised for social actors who may perceive their power positioning as something that is permanent within a social space or structure. As Giddens (1984) notes, social structures are both constraining and empowering, shaping individuals’ interactions and their access to resources. Social norms that favour certain groups or perspectives can create a hierarchical social structure where some individuals are systematically privileged while others are marginalised, impacting the perceived value of the groups and their level of inclusivity overall. This is particularly relevant in educational settings, where research by Cohen and Lotan (2014) demonstrates how group dynamics and classroom norms can affect students’ participation and inclusion. They reveal that the roles and hierarchies established within social groups can either encourage or hinder a person’s engagement, depending on how dominant or passive students are recognised, positioned and responded to.

The empowerment of marginalised individuals is intrinsically linked to power dynamics in fostering genuine inclusion in a social space. According to Arnstein (1969) , effective participation involves not just symbolic inclusion, but also the redistribution of power to ensure that marginalised voices can influence decisions and social spaces. Tokenism, where marginalised groups are superficially included without real impact, reflects a power dynamic where the position of the powerful remains within the dominant group. As a result, the dominant group retains control over decision-making processes and resource allocation, while marginalised voices have limited influence on meaningful outcomes. In this context, power is defined by a social actor’s ability to affect decisions and outcomes within their social spaces. Arnstein’s model illustrates that real empowerment requires a shift in power relations, allowing marginalised individuals to not only be present, but also to have a purposeful role in decision-making processes. This redistribution of power involves creating structures that support meaningful engagement, such as ensuring that marginalised groups have the resources, authority and support to influence decisions. Dewey (1916) f urther links power to the inclusivity of a social space through his advocacy for democratic education. Dewey emphasised that education should be a participatory process where students and other stakeholders share power in shaping their learning experiences. By involving students in curriculum design, policy development and classroom management, educators can alter the power dynamics within educational settings and improve upon the inclusivity of the social space. This participatory approach helps to dismantle traditional power hierarchies and fosters a more inclusive environment where diverse perspectives are acknowledged, considered and valued.

Finally, inclusion within social spaces hinges not only on the physical accessibility and design of an environment, but on the power dynamics at play. While the orientation of physical spaces is crucial for accessibility, it is the distribution and exercise of power among social actors that profoundly influence the sense of belonging and inclusion within these spaces. Power is relational and embedded in social norms and institutions, shaping how interactions and participation occur. Power dynamics manifest in visible forms, such as formal authority, and in subtle forms, such as informal social norms, all which impact the inclusivity of any environment. Ultimately, fostering genuine inclusion requires addressing power dynamics and ensuring that marginalised individuals have purposeful roles in decision-making processes. This involves creating structures that support meaningful engagement, challenging tokenistic practices and promoting a participatory approach that recognises and values diverse perspectives. Through these efforts of reflecting upon existing power dynamics, social spaces can be an inclusive place for all individuals, mitigating against feelings of isolation or social exclusion, thereby enhancing the sense of belonging and active participation of social actors within the social space.

Example Case – Intergenerational Learning Initiatives

In the Netherlands, intergenerational activities have been integrated into community programmes in local libraries, community centres and care homes. Activities like storytelling and joint gardening sessions were facilitated, giving a purposeful shared meaning for children and older adults to socially connect together, resulting in a reduction in age-related stereotypes (Groot and van Gils, 2016). The generational approach to structured activities generated ongoing opportunities for children and older adults to build mutual respect and shared understanding on a regular basis. Initiating these intergenerational activities into common spaces created environments where social inclusion thrived, demonstrating that inclusion is not merely about the physical design of a space, but about creating opportunities for meaningful social interaction.

Similar to the Netherlands, in Italy, art workshops and cooking classes were also delivered to generate inclusivity between the different age groups. By making the activities culturally relevant, Italy fostered a sense of community belonging among children and older adults (Bertolini and Luppi, 2017). Not only were children and older people socially engaged collectively, but cultural ties across generations were also reinforced. This approach highlighted how inclusion can be achieved through the recognition of shared cultural heritage and family traditions, creating a social space where generational bonds are strengthened through cultural experiences and knowledge.

In Portugal, the main focus was on outdoor activities and environmental education, such as nature walks and community gardening, creating a common shared purpose between children and older adults. By engaging together in activities with a shared goal of improving their environment, participants from both groups demonstrated better understanding of environmental issues as well as strengthening intergenerational collaboration (Coelho and Pinto, 2018). These inclusive practices encouraged a sense of ecological responsibility and environmental stewardship. The approach demonstrated that inclusion can be improved by identifying shared community goals and facilitating opportunities for collaboration that promote the environmental well-being of communities strengthened by intergenerational engagement.

In Slovenia, intergenerational activities were implemented into established local festivals and cultural events. According to Pahor and Kump (2018), by utilising cultural festivals as a social space where people participated, this proved to be an effective tool to implement intergenerational activities as part of the festival schedule by delivering art workshops, storytelling and traditional games and encouraging diverse social engagement. This approach highlights the benefits of integrating inclusive practices into a country’s existing cultural frameworks, where intergenerational interactions can become an intrinsic part of a country’s community and social life.

The Impact of Intergenerational Learning

1. Reduction of Social Isolation

• Netherlands: In line with findings from other countries, the Netherlands saw a 25% decrease in social isolation among older adults who engaged in intergenerational activities such as gardening and storytelling, driven by the meaningful engagement and shared experiences with children and their peers (Groot and van Gils, 2016).
• Italy: Older adults participating in intergenerational activities experienced a 20% reduction in social isolation in the Italian context. The shared activities with younger generations helped build strong interpersonal connections and reduced feelings of loneliness (Rossi and Ferrari, 2019).
• Portugal: Intergenerational programmes that focused on environmental activities led to a notable 25% reduction in feelings of loneliness among older adults. These programmes provided meaningful interactions through shared environmental projects and fostered connections between generations (Coelho and Pinto, 2018).
• Slovenia: In Slovenia, older adults reported a 30% reduction in loneliness when intergenerational activities were integrated into their local cultural events (Pahor and Kump, 2018).

2. Enhanced Cognitive and Emotional Development in Children

• Netherlands: Children benefited from a 20% increase in cognitive skills and a 15% improvement in social-emotional skills as a result of intergenerational activities like storytelling and shared learning projects (Groot and van Gils, 2016).
• Italy: Significant improvements were observed, with children showing a 25% increase in social skills and a 20% enhancement in emotional resilience. These gains were attributed to the rich, interactive experiences with older adults (Bertolini and Luppi, 2017).
• Portugal: Children participating in intergenerational activities showed a 15% improvement in social-emotional skills and a 20% increase in cognitive development. These activities helped children develop a broader perspective and better emotional resilience through interactions with older adults (Coelho and Pinto, 2018).
• Slovenia: Children involved in intergenerational programmes reported a 20% increase in both cognitive and social-emotional skills. These programmes facilitated meaningful exchanges with older generations, contributing to enhanced development (Pahor and Kump, 2018).

3. Increased Community Cohesion

• Netherlands: The implementation of intergenerational activities like gardening and storytelling resulted in a 35% improvement in social inclusion and community cohesion, driven by the collective efforts of different age groups working together (Groot and van Gils, 2016).
• Italy: Community cohesion saw a 30% improvement due to intergenerational programmes. These initiatives helped foster a stronger sense of community by encouraging collaboration between generations on various projects (Rossi and Ferrari, 2019).
• Portugal: The focus on intergenerational environmental projects led to a 40% increase in community engagement and collective responsibility. Both children and older adults collaborated on shared goals, which strengthened community ties (Coelho and Pinto, 2018).
• Slovenia: There was a remarkable 45% increase in social inclusion and a heightened sense of belonging due to the integration of intergenerational activities into cultural events. This approach effectively leveraged existing social structures to enhance community cohesion (Pahor and Kump, 2018).

Intergenerational learning initiatives highlight the profound benefits of social inclusion across diverse cultural contexts, as evidenced by the positive outcomes in countries like Portugal, Italy, Slovenia, and the Netherlands. By fostering meaningful interactions between generations, these programmes not only reduce social isolation among older adults, but also enhance cognitive and emotional development in children. When tailored to the unique cultural contexts of each country, whether through environmental projects in Portugal, local cultural events in Slovenia, cooking traditional food in Italy or storytelling and gardening in the Netherlands, these initiatives create shared experiences that bridge generational gaps and strengthen social inclusion regardless of the physical space of the initiative. Ultimately, intergenerational learning serves as a powerful tool, demonstrating the power of social dynamics in enhancing the inclusivity of physical space and generating social spaces that are underpinned by collective meaning and a shared purpose.

This case study examines the implementation and impact of intergenerational learning initiatives in various countries and demonstrates the power of the physical accessibility and social dynamics of a space in enhancing the inclusivity of the environment. Schools, for example, are distinct social spaces in themselves. In many instances, schools are the first introduction of a social context to an individual (see Lifespan Development and the Social Space). Schools should be safe spaces where learners can disclose their experiences to teachers and other school staff, who, in turn, should promote inclusion for all learners. Schools should encourage inclusive practices that originate from one’s ability to act (or participation?), whether that means to leave or to stay. Ultimately, teachers who reflect on their practice have the capacity to create inclusion through their actions and engagement with students, and by recognising how physical space in itself does not make an environment inclusive, rather it is the individuals in the space that makes the difference.

Consider the prompts below to reflect on your personal experiences within social spaces:

• What are your memorable moments of feeling included in certain social spaces? (prompt: who were there? what did they do? what did you do?)
• What are your memorable moments of feeling excluded in certain social spaces? (prompt: who were there? what did they do? what did you do?)

Structural Disadvantage

The ability to participate in a space is often contrasted with structural factors such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, race etc. that can be used to limit people’s opportunities to access their rights (Drew C, 2023). They thrive in spaces that are aligned to their diverse needs, and empower, and enable them to interact with the environment and others. In some cases, however, humans face various limitations that inhibit their possibility to participate in social interactions with their peers and other members of their communities.  For example, a young teen mother who juggles parenthood, schooling, and being a young person might not have the time to join other young people in social spaces and may therefore feel isolated. The situation will worsen if she lacks the digital devices to connect with others, or the financial means to go to places where she can socialise with other young people. Many local authorities provide parks and green spaces where people of all ages can spend time relaxing and meet friends. However, underprivileged and marginalised people rarely make use of such spaces for various reasons (such as?). Most people presenting with diversity and disadvantage are often met with negative attitudes and prejudice (Francis and Muthukrishna, 2018). While the latter elaborated on subtle forms of exclusion in the curriculum in primary and secondary education, Adair (2014) emphasises inclusive policies (Booth and Ainscow, 2011) to ensure inclusive spaces for preschoolers from migration backgrounds.

The picture above represents a social space at a higher education institution in Namibia.

Educational institutions should be constantly aware of diversity in their school settings and create cultures of inclusion in schools and communities (Ainscow 2000).  If schools model inclusion of for young people who are different, children and young people will learn to respect diversity and reach out to those who do not blend in easily due to their unique characteristics. These could be an immigrant who does not know the dominant language, a child who has a disability and the playground makes no provision for their needs; a child or young person who has limited access to food; or a teen parent who wishes s/he could go out and hang out with others but fears to be mocked for being a parent.

How can schools and communities ensure that everyone has access to inclusive social spaces in which no one feels left out? Firstly, it is important to understand the school as a social space. Social spaces can perpetuate exclusion through covert and overt forms. Covert factors include the physical infrastructure of the social environment in terms of how the physical environment is organised, the accessibility and safety considerations. Overt factors to consider will be psychological or emotional symbols with relation to cultures, values and norms. Booth and Ainscow (2000) identified three key indicators as part of their Index for Inclusion. These are Inclusive Cultures, Inclusive Policies and Inclusive Practices. For this chapter, we focus on inclusive cultures as key indicators of inclusive schools. Under the dimension of Creating Inclusive Cultures, there are specific indicators that schools need to consider such as:

Source: Booth and Ainscow in Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (2011)

Educational institutions that are intentionally reflective, and prioritise these values, will create a socially inclusive learning and socialisation environment. Sabahat et al (2014) explored the role of the social environment on the quality of intercultural friendships and found that efforts should focus on ensuring schools become enablers of positive and quality relationships.

In this section, we provided reflections on structural limitations and how these impacts social space inclusion or exclusion. We encourage teachers to address issues in schools and communities that have the potential to threaten peace, harmony, and social cohesion. Using the following case study, try to apply the concepts covered to explore issues both superficial and invisible.

Conclusion

The chapter discussed how to raise awareness regarding social space orientation and inclusion, not as an intrusive concept, but as a natural consideration for transition over the life course. Rather than adopting a disruptive approach and changing for the sake of inclusion, this chapter outlines that inclusion is beneficial for any individual in the social space. We also challenged teacher-education students  to expand inclusive education discourse beyond academic competencies by focusing on the way social spaces can vary throughout an individual’s lifespan. The case scenario provided discusses a broad range of contexts, rather than the teacher’s perspective, to intentionally capture how teachers contribute to the dynamics that occur within a social space as a crucial element amongst the range of different social actors. Social space from our perspective presents as an interactional aspect rather than a physically defined domain. The expansive nature of social spaces requires an element of self-reflection to allow for an in-depth understanding of the influence and dynamics that exist within any social context. The case studies given throughout this chapter have been specifically designed for readers to develop a relative sense of engagement rather than a prescriptive approach to inclusion. We hope that readers can adopt the same ethos in how we see inclusive education, that it is of itself, a holistic discourse for social development that goes beyond the physical boundaries of an environment.

Social spaces can take the form of any physical space such as schools, playgrounds , parks, libraries, shopping centres, restaurants, sports fields, and entertainment centres, among others. Social spaces can also be invisible, virtual or emotional environments that have an impact on how individuals feel accepted or rejected; safe or unsafe. Rather than the space itself, think of the people most likely to interact with the space in access and use. It could be something as simple as ‘Are there ramps for persons with disabilities and grandparents who come to the school?’ or more complex considerations of ‘Are there hygiene facilities to support girls  at school?’ Are there support platforms for learners identifying as queer, transgender or any other non-conventional sexual orientations?  How about non-conventional beliefs or religions? The answers to these questions may in some way explain why some children watch others play from a distance even though they have the choice to actively and freely participate.  It is important for teachers to be conscious of social space orientation and the role it plays in social inclusion, especially in the ever-increasing diverse school and community populations.

Local contexts

Literature

About the authors

name: Cynthy K. Haihambo

Cynthy Kaliinasho Haihambo Ya-Otto is a teacher-educator at the University of Namibia. Her teaching and research areas are in Educational Psychology and Inclusive Education.

name: Chloë Keegan

website: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9759-6370

Dr. Chloë Keegan is a Lecturer in the Froebel Department of Primary Education and Early Childhood in Maynooth University. With over a decade of experience in the early childhood sector as a researcher, lecturer, educator, content developer, and early childhood specialist, Chloë’s passion lies in conducting qualitative research directly with young children and advocating for children’s voices to be heard and reflected in policy and legislation. Her research has explored how power dynamics, educational structures, and shared environments between adults and children shape children’s participation through her Doctor in Philosophy (Ph.D) in Education entitled “It’s Like a Baby Jail!’ The impact of regimented daily routines on children’s participation in early childhood education”. Chloë has led national and international campaigns and initiatives as an outdoor and nature specialist in early childhood education, contributed to Ireland’s alignment with international practices, particularly for outdoor play, policy and provision, and is conducting research to inform national Irish policy and guidance for children and adults with disabilities.

name: Victor Tan Chee Shien

Victor Tan Chee Shien has over ten years of experience in special education and is a trained counsellor and educational psychologist. He recently received his Associate Fellowship in higher education from the University of Stirling. His research interests include special education, higher education, and international mobility (ORCID: 0009-0006-3403-4649).