Cogent Social Sciences
2025, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2551871
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2551871
Sociology | Research Article
The power of Awkwardness - Creating the capacity to live with
difference
Kjartan Skogly Kversøya
and Eva Daae Kversøyb,b
Department of Educational Science, University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway; bDepartment of Nursing and Health
Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg , Norway
a
ABSTRACT
This article focuses on creating a capacity to live with differences. It is a philosophical
and pedagogical text about the problems and possibilities that may occur when aiming
to live together despite differences. We focus on the challenge of living with people
with intellectual disabilities of more severe degrees and address the issue of socializing
when differences seem difficult to handle. We want to show that the differences might
not be as great as we are inclined to think. People, whatever the ability, want many of
the same basic things. We want to be taken seriously, we want friendships, and we
want to make our own decisions.
A difficult obstacle is the social phenomenon of awkwardness. This often emerges
when different people meet. On one hand, these awkward encounters may have
negative outcomes, resulting in exclusion. However, awkwardness also contains
possibilities. The moment of awkwardness identifies where it can be useful to develop
new strategies to facilitate change. As part of this analysis, we will show how habits can
get in the way of interaction and how knowingness and playfulness can open for
socialization. Finally, we explore strategies and tools that could contribute to bridging
the gap.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 10 June 2025
Revised 18 July 2025
Accepted 19 August 2025
KEYWORDS
Living with differences;
awkwardness; belonging;
self-determination;
intellectual disability
SUBJECTS
Social Work; Education Social Sciences;
Philosophy; Language &
Linguistics; Education;
Sociology
Introduction
This is a philosophical and pedagogical article about the problems and possibilities that may occur when
we aim to live together despite our differences. In this case, we are thinking of the challenge of living
with people with intellectual disabilities of more severe degrees. People living with this level of disability
can be intellectually, physically, and emotionally challenged. Often, they struggle with both socialization
and verbal communication.
The article is philosophical in the sense that we want to illuminate some relevant concepts of interpersonal interaction, communication, and understanding. The article is pedagogical in the sense that we
have an ambition to present some modes of thought for systematic reflection, strategies for change, and
practical examples of how living together can be managed despite our differences.
The differences in question are about abilities that are mostly taken for granted by the majority. For
the minority, in this case people with intellectual disabilities of more severe degrees, the struggle and
even inability to participate in ordinary communication without support, may often exclude them from
social interaction and hinder them in being included in the community. The exclusion is not necessarily
intended or wanted by the majority, but often just happens due to lack of awareness, reflection and
knowing how to handle the unfamiliar situation at hand.
The paper’s aim is to reveal some areas of special concern and suggest ways of handling them. The
areas of special concern are people with intellectual disabilities of more severe degrees and their missed
opportunities of socializing and becoming a part of the community. As a way of investigating our
CONTACT Kjartan Skogly Kversøy
Norway
kjartan.s.kversoy@usn.no
Department of Educational Science, University of South-Eastern Norway,
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
concern we are inspired by the concept of awkwardness as described by Plakias (2024) and Kotsko
(2010). Together with our personal experiences we will show examples of where challenging differences
become visible and unveil some of the helplessness that often accompanies awkward encounters. We
will show that awkwardness describes special cases of situations that occur frequently in the lives of
many people with disabilities. At the same time it seems that awkwardness often is triggered by the
majority’s lack of experience with socializing with people with intellectual disabilities. By awkwardness
we mean the social situations that emerge where we encounter something unfamiliar that we lack a
social script for (Kotsko, 2010; Plakias, 2024). Awkwardness is by this preliminary definition something
deeply relational and, as will be elaborate later, a powerful emotional state that can cause exclusion
through withdrawal. In contrast moments of awkwardness could also become useful to pinpoint situations that might be ideal for intervention, development and change.
The term ‘living together’ is loosely meant. In this case, it is about any social arena or social network
within our communities where it is possible for people with intellectual disabilities to meet and interact
with people from the majority. This does not exclude the challenges of living together in group homes,
other forms of assisted living, specialized schools, specialized daycare, or assisted workplaces; however,
these arenas are often staffed with people with relevant knowledge and experience. We are mostly concerned about the times when the minority of people with intellectual disabilities meet the majority and
where inclusion and belonging could be realized to a larger degree.
Social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities
Buschard et al. (2002) state that social inclusion in the field of disability is about greater participation in
community-based activities and broader social networks. Abbott and McConkey (2006) refer to an article
written by Ager et al. (2001) titled: ‘Moving Home: Social Integration for Adults with Learning Disabilities
Resettling into Community Provision’.
(…) it has become apparent that physical presence within a community does not guarantee greater social
inclusion. Taking part in activities and using local facilities, does not necessarily lead to meaningful social
contact with others, particularly the non-disabled population. (Abbott & McConkey, 2006, pp. 275)
There is a continued gap between living within a community and being part of a community (Ager
et al., 2001). For some people with intellectual disabilities of more severe degrees, life is often about
in-house activities with support staff and, on rare occasions, meeting people who visit their homes.
Visitors are most often family members and, to a lesser degree, friends. For many, being part of the
community outside their homes extends to doing things like going shopping, going to the hairdresser,
taking the bus, or eating at a restaurant.
Many of these activities are more about living in the community than taking an active part in it.
Awkwardness is at least one identifiable factor of why this is the case. The differences experienced by
the majority when encountering the minority, often due to unusual communication or behavior, make
interaction less familiar, less streamlined and more demanding:
A core factor of belonging is relational belonging - (…) that arises from the decision to approach and interact.
(…) While doing this with another speaking person may appear simple and familiar, the approach to a person
with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities may be complicated by ethics, emotions, past experience
and contemplations of the judgement or imagined judgements held by others. (Foster, 2020, pp. 133)
However, this does not mean that these moments of interaction are easier for the minority. The
majority often experience encounters with the minority as emotionally challenging. Withdrawal is
often the easiest way of coping. Although rarely intended, this often results in relational exclusion for
the minority. Engagement requires extra commitment (Foster, 2020). The emotional stress and the
lack of social script will often be more than what the everyday encounter is ready for. The level of
social investment needed is often simply too high. The imbalances in power are apparent.
Communication skills are just one of many factors that make bridging the social gap hard. Taking part
in a community for the minority seems to require knowledge, support and facilitation. We will get
back to this.
Cogent Social Sciences
3
The most frequent social interactions for the minority occur in connection with education, employment, and daycare (Engeland et al., 2021). For example, in Norway, 53% of adults diagnosed with an
intellectual disability have no daily activities in education, employment, or day care (Engeland & Langballe,
2018). A Norwegian research report states that none of the people interviewed who lived in their own
homes in local communities had any social interaction with neighbors (Høyland et al., 2021). Although
the results from the latter report are qualitative and about a small group of people, they are recognizable to anyone connected to this field of inquiry. We will not analyze this side of the situation further.
We want to highlight that social interactions between the majority and the minority are rare. The rarity
seems to increase with the severity of the disability. The rarity is a factor that should be considered.
Differences are likely to be even more apparent if we rarely meet.
Facilitating the majority
We want to discuss the possibility of creating the capacity to interact and socialize, despite our differences. It is a quest that is demanding for all participants, either they represent the majority or
minority. We argue that in these types of interactions, the majority have a special responsibility to
make it work.
This article was not primarily written with family, friends, or support staff in mind. They are often the
experts who take responsibility for facilitating the types of interactions we describe. We are more concerned with the majority that are not used to interacting with people with intellectual disabilities. We
want to discuss what it takes if we are serious about inclusion and belonging in ordinary social settings.
This might be in schools, as people with intellectual disabilities arguably often are more integrated
during their school years, but also more ambitiously in other open-for-all arenas in our local communities. Exclusion, segregation, and invisibility is even more common for this minority when they finish
school and reach adulthood.
The school years are a special case worth highlighting. In these years, people with intellectual disabilities are most likely to interact with the majority daily. This means that school is an arena and a period
in everyone’s lives with valuable opportunities for getting used to each other’s differences and practice
interactions. During the school years inclusive pedagogical practices and actively minimizing ableism
have unique opportunities. This is an opportunity for both the majority and the minority. It is a rare
period in everyone’s lives to practice to live in diversity:
We believe schools should approach ableism in the same way they approach other issues of societal equality
in relation to race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, as a matter of diversity. Further, schools should
actively seek to minimize ableism through educational practices that minimize the negative impact of disability, celebrate the positive impact of disability, and maximize opportunities for their students to live full lives.
(Hehir & Katzman, 2012, pp. xiii)
Inclusion, participation and belonging are therefore not about charity but simple rights as equally valuable human beings. It is the right to be included in a diverse society on the same premises as everyone
else. Our reflex of awkwardness could even be showing us that there is a group of people that are offered
a lesser standard than others. Ableism is about not being given the same opportunities to live a full life.
In the adult years there seems to be a greater need for establishing inclusive arenas, making ordinary
community arenas more inclusive and engaging people with experience to share knowledge and facilitate interaction. We will get back to this.
We experience that individuals from the majority in some cases have problematic attitudes, but we
choose to leave those discussions to others. Our focus is on the pressing issues of facilitating those who
are interested and positive. Good people with favorable attitudes exist. We often meet representatives of
the majority who want to interact and contribute.
Identifying obstacles
There are obstacles that can get in the way of living together. One such common obstacle is the
near-uncontrollable reaction that often emerges when representatives of the majority encounter
4
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
someone very different from them for the first time. This is the phenomenon of awkwardness. Plakias
(2024) states that awkwardness is important to recognize. It is a property of social interaction, for which
we lack a social script. Awkwardness is a social phenomenon and is something that happens between
people. It leads to feelings of uncertainty, embarrassment, and discomfort.
Even in research, awkwardness is under-communicated, rarely discussed, and often hidden (Koning &
Ooi, 2013). Failure to acknowledge the reality of human encounters deprives us of social reflexivity.
Possibilities for inclusion might be lost by not recognizing the existence of this phenomenon. Clegg
(2012) highlights that avoiding the awkward situation often magnifies it, while attempting to resolve it
is associated with re-establishing a sense of social harmony. In this light, we believe it is worthwhile to
discuss awkwardness. We will elaborate on this later in the article. This seems to be a common factor
that often hinders interactions. We believe that awkwardness can also be seen as a powerful phenomenon and potential source for identifying situations where development can be initiated. A critical factor
in facilitating change and improvement is identifying where we can best use our energy. Therefore, awkwardness can be a useful tool. For this reason, we chose to call our article The Power of Awkwardness.
Awkwardness is intuitively associated with something destructive, but as we want to show, it might also
be a potentially constructive power.
Are we really that different?
We wish to take a closer look at the phenomenon of difference. Are we really that different from each
other? We want to promote the optimistic view that, if we can overcome our feelings of awkwardness,
people have many things in common. Whatever the ability, we all mostly want the same basic things.
We want to be seen and taken seriously, we want to be places where people know our names, we want
companionship and friends, we want to hang out and have fun, we want to express our opinions, and
we want to make our own decisions. We acknowledge that some styles of communication and some
modes of behavior might take some getting used to. Still, we claim that it is possible for anyone who is
willing to obtain a little bit of new knowledge and accept some facilitation from people more used to
how it all works.
Missing and overlooked
A large minority is often missing when people meet. They are often missing because the relevant social
arenas in local communities often do not exist. Often, we also lack imagination to adjust the social arenas that do exist in ways that can make them relevant for more inclusion. This minority is also often
missing, simply because we forget to invite them. Those with the weakest voices are also the ones that
are the easiest to forget.
In addition, comfortable myths about people with disabilities preferring ‘to be with their own’, or need
special social arenas, are some of the many oppressive ideas that exclude interaction between the
minority and the majority. For example, it is important to be aware that people who struggle with verbal
communication often find it exhausting to interact with others with similar challenges. This does not
mean that many representatives of this minority do not enjoy social arenas that are specially prepared
and adapted to their needs. This also does not mean that representatives of this minority never appreciate the company and social interaction with people with similar challenges. Valuable special arenas do
exist, and many valuable relationships also exist between people with intellectual disabilities. We need
more of these arenas and those that exist need to be preserved. That is a topic for another article. The
deeper agenda in this article is about facilitating belonging to the society we are a part of and, to a
lesser degree, being segregated because of differentness.
The lack of knowledge and experience among the majority also makes room for stereotypes. One is
the poor disabled child that is seen as damaged goods. The child seems only to deserve pity and charity
(Hehir, 2005). This might seem like an outdated perspective, but it is a surprisingly stubborn prejudice
that many people with disabilities and their parents regularly encounter. Another is the moving image
of people with disabilities that overcome impossible challenges and defy their disabilities. Media loves
Cogent Social Sciences
5
them. The stories are touching and easy to sell. For many living with disabilities it is just exhausting and
feels oppressive.
(…) this stereotype implies that a disabled person is presumed deserving of pity instead of respect until the
person proves capable of overcoming disability through extraordinary feats (Shapiro 1994). Both these dominant stereotypes have their core in an ableist perspective: the failure to accept and value disabled people as
they are. (Hehir, 2005, pp.17)
Reality is important. Part of the solution is adapting to life as it is. Many representatives of this
minority live rigid institutionalized lives with care regimes that are often not flexible. Simple things such
as transport can stop potential interactions from occurring. This and many other practical issues can
make it difficult to attend social arenas. ‘(…) the voice of the person with intellectual disability has often
been missing from debates as to how greater social inclusion can become a reality for them’ (Abott &
McConkey, 2006, pp. 275).
As if this is not more than enough, what often happens when representatives from this diverse group
finally meet with representatives of the majority is that they tend to be overlooked. Not overlooked in
the sense that they are hard to spot (they rarely are), but in the sense that awkwardness tends to
emerge when they do show up. The majority often reacts with avoidance. Thus, being overlooked has
oppressive consequences. This is rarely an intended form of oppression. Oppression does not need to be
the result of destructive ideas put into action. Often, oppression occurs when we lack awareness or the
capability to challenge feelings that surface. Oppression can occur simply by the majority complying
with withdrawal. This can serve as the starting point. We want to challenge these reactions and offer
insights and options to resigning to our feelings of awkwardness.
Background
The authors of this article are researchers and scholars in the fields of healthcare and special education.
We are also the mother and father of a young woman with an intellectual disability of a more severe
degree. Her name is Sofie Daae Kversøy. There is no reason to keep her name hidden, as she has participated as our co-researcher under her full name in several published projects (Kversøy et al., 2019,
2020, 2022; Kversøy & Kversøy, 2018). She is a creative and powerful collaborator in our deeply intertwined lives and in shared research projects. Sofie loves attention and is a strong advocate of preserving
her right to be seen. She utilizes her self-determination on all possible occasions. She fights for her
decisions and is always willing to negotiate vigorously if she does not agree. She never chooses the
option of being anonymous.
When we pay attention, she has important knowledge and experience to offer. She is also often the
one who shows us the options and solutions. She is not the object of our research. We are not exploring
her but exploring together with her. She is our research partner. It would be unreasonable to write an
article like this without acknowledging her contributions. She is simply our peer. Not mentioning a contributing colleague is unacceptable. Our closeness contributes with a unique perspective. This is a special
knowledge that is too important to remain hidden and is the main source of our ongoing exploratory,
developmental and collaborative research. Experienced practitioners and researchers from the University
of Southampton, write the following in defense of using real names in inclusive research concerning
people with intellectual disabilities.
(…) protection is not always found in anonymity and that by showing their faces and speaking their names,
we ensure that these people are not hidden but are recognized for their part in research. (…) Inclusive
research commonly names, as authors or in acknowledgements, the people with intellectual disabilities
involved as contributors. (Grace et al., 2024, pp. 3)
We often talk about our collaboration, and Sofie loves showing videos from our research to others.
She is happy to be mentioned in this article and we have no reason to doubt her opinion. Our most
important goal is to create a good life and seek meaningful interaction. This study is part of that ongoing
ambition. All three want more people to understand how they can better interact with Sofie and others
6
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
in similar situations. We live with this every day, so analyzing our own interaction should provide insights
and may unfold possible ‘nuts and bolts’ that can be of use to others. We know that a good life and
meaningful days are in no way something we can take for granted. Our experience is that we have to
work for it and fight for it continuously. This study is one of our efforts to be proactive for change. Hehir
(2005) urges us to remember that disability is not a tragedy, though society’s response to it often can be.
What does it take to live with difference?
We present examples of what it takes to live with differences and show ways of creating improvements.
‘The capacity to live with difference is, in my view, the coming question of the twenty-first century’ (Hall,
1993, pp. 361). Although we are addressing the challenges of a special group of people, we see possibilities for wider application in other cases in which living together, despite differences, is understood as
valuable. Interacting with and developing friendships with people with intellectual disabilities requires
knowledge and skills that are relevant and useful in most human encounters.
Many people associated with minority groups experience that good intentions, values, and ideologies
often do not change reality. It can be difficult to make inclusion and belonging happen. Whether we are
part of a conceived minority or a majority, most people tend to keep doing what they are used to doing
(Dewey, 1985). Change is hard. Human habits and traditions are just some of the obstacles that make it
difficult to bridge this gap. We will later use insights from Dewey to show how our habits are both a
necessity and potential trap. Another challenge is the lack of practical alternatives. It can be perplexing
to meet and try to interact with someone that we do not know or understand. Without a minimum of
strategies, many simply get stuck in their feelings of awkwardness and find it easier to give up and
withdraw.
This does not imply that the task is impossible. We want to show that a broad range of understandings and approaches are needed to succeed in changing the status quo. The challenge might seem
daunting, and we can confirm that it both is, and it does not have to be.
We do not have all the answers and do not see all the possible perspectives, but from personal experience, we do know some of the basic challenges and manageable possibilities. We believe that they are
relevant to this collection of articles about living with differences. We also believe that they are valuable
and worth sharing. We are not alone in these experiences. We find support in the research of many
practitioners and scholars working in the same field.
One such manageable starting point can be expressed through de Haas (2020) optimistic and practical perspectives. She claims that all people, with or without disabilities, want to hang out with the people they like. They want to experience things with other people and to construct meanings together. In
this case, de Haas refers to the time she has spent with her deceased daughter, Johanna de Haas (1988–
2019). Johanna de Haas had profound and multiple disabilities. De Haas shares a story of her daughter
as an important part of social history. People with disabilities are often invisible in historical accounts
and often not recognized for their contributions and influence. The story of de Haas (2020) is presented
in the anthology: Belonging for People with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities: Pushing the
Boundaries of Inclusion. The editors, Nind and Strnadová (2020), confirm that her story has influenced the
thinking of scholars working with how people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities can be
included and empowered to contribute to people close to them, to research, and to the community.
De Haas (2020) shares examples that we can understand and manage. Just singing or experiencing
the weather together can be ways of creating common meaning. She also promotes the idea of offering
knowledge and guidance. We support this idea, and our article has been written with this in mind. The
awkwardness and discomfort experienced by many people can be overcome using knowledge and guidance. De Haas claims that friendships are even possible. It takes time and is slow to achieve, but those
who accept the challenge feel greatly rewarded.
Methodological reflections
Although many of the discussions in this article are theoretical, we also use examples to clarify our ideas.
Some examples come from the research of others, while others are from our own research and personal
Cogent Social Sciences
7
experiences. It is not our intention to generalize the experiences of individuals that live with intellectual
disabilities. People with intellectual disabilities are part of a large and diverse group. Despite this, many
challenges and experiences are shared. Typically, many struggle with communication and socialization
and many regularly experience instances of awkwardness.
Joining communication between representatives of the majority requires skills. Struggling to express
oneself is one thing, but the speed of average communication (Kotsko, 2010) within the majority is often
far beyond the capabilities of many belonging to the minority. These challenges concern many with all
degrees of intellectual disability and are even part of the basic diagnosis of what it is to have an intellectual disability.
A number of factors may either facilitate or hinder adaptive functioning in one or more activities of daily life,
such as communications, social participation, and independent living, across multiple environments such as
home, school, work, and community. (Patel et al., 2020, pp. 25)
Many of the different challenges faced can in be hard to understand, identify and even imagine.
Words are often lacking for those living with these types of disabilities. Those trying to share their experiences, insights, and knowledge often find that we lack words that can sufficiently represent their situation. For these reasons alone, we feel the need to be sensitive and avoid committing to a rigid
methodology. The perspectives on reflexive methodology, as presented by Alvesson & Sköldberg (2009),
offer recognizable alternatives when they write the following:
Research can be seen as a fundamentally interpretive activity, which in contrast to - or at least to a greater
degree than - other activity, is aware of this very fact. The recognition that all research work includes and is
driven by an interpreter – who in the social sciences, moreover, often interacts with and contemplates other
interpreters (the people studied) – here provides the key to a qualified methodological view. Thus, method
cannot be disengaged from theory and other elements of pre-understanding, since assumptions and notions
in some sense determine interpretations and representations of the object of study. Hermeneutics is thus an
important form of reflection. (…) Social science is a social phenomenon embedded in a political and ethical
context. What is explored, and how it is explored, can hardly avoid either supporting (reproducing) or challenging existing social conditions. (pp. 11)
Brazilian educator and philosopher Freire (2005) highlights the need to connect words to action.
He writes:
An unauthentic word, one which is unable to transform reality, results when dichotomy is imposed upon its
constitutive elements. When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as
well; and the word is changed into idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating ‘blah.’ It
becomes an empty word, one which cannot denounce the world, for denunciation is impossible without a
commitment to transform, and there is no transformation without action. (Freire, 2005, pp. 87)
In our case, we struggle with expressing the words needed to adequately represent those who live
with word-depriving disabilities. What we have is our daily collaboration in action and living together.
Thus, examples from daily life are essential for meaningful reflection. Freire confirms that words separated from the actions happening within the lives of those concerned are futile if we are serious about
systematic reflection and real collaboration for change and improvement.
We have found that the words of Gadamer (1989) have given us some firm methodological ground
to stand on and have been valuable in identifying perspectives that can represent our methodological
needs. We have not so much put a specific methodological strategy into action. Rather, we have engaged
in an interpretive activity and tried to make sense of the things we encounter and get engaged in. In a
similar way, for Gadamer, understanding is not about setting a method into action; it is more about not
hindering understanding in happening.
What does this mean in the present case? We, as researchers, are participants in a reality where we
stand in a personal connection to the things we are studying. We necessarily bring with us our knowledge, experiences and preconceptions. This is not a problem for Gadamer. On the contrary, this is both
unavoidable and necessary to understand anything at all. Understanding is more about not being captivated by our preconceptions and being willing to wonder and reflect as openly as possible.
Understanding is about asking questions and being willing to accept that what we think we know, so
far, might need adjustments and might need to be fundamentally changed. We even enter our research
8
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
with intentions and values. We want to facilitate change, we want to improve the situation we are a part
of, we want to promote hope, and we want to show and share our parental, mutual, and deeply
co-dependent love and commitment.
This does not mean that ‘anything goes’ as Feyerabend expressed in his book Science in a Free Society
in 1978. Gadamer’s concept of coherence has been valuable in getting a grip on things. We look for
coherence between theory and the practical experiences of others and ourselves. We claim that this is
within the boundaries of hermeneutics, as explained by Gadamer (1989). Gadamer is concerned with
what it is to understand. He does not present a method to follow but explores what kind of activity
understanding is. Although Gadamer is often considered a man of words, his theoretical work in Truth
and Method suggests a close relationship between understanding and practical application (Gadamer,
1989). The words are about something. The practical world is important for the meanings of words. Word
users constantly need to renegotiate the meaning of the words they use regarding things and events.
There is a constant need to work this out through dialogue, application, and collaboration. We can manage our further search for truth by seeking coherence. We constantly study the parts and wholeness they
seem to be a part of to let meaning emerge.
In the extension of this we are inspired by action research, as explained by Reason and Bradbury (2001):
Action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the
pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview which we believe is emerging
at this historical moment. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation
with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally
the flourishing of individual persons and their communities. (pp. 1)
Action research ideas have given us tools to help us legitimate that our research can also be development work. The connection between hermeneutics and action research might not be apparent, but
Scott-Villiers (2014) suggests that Gadamer’s emphasis on understanding as an unending dialogue fits
well with the thinking of action research as a possible philosophical orientation towards coming to
understanding with others. Gadamer’s work appeals to values of deep relevance for action researchers.
We do not randomly want to improve the situation we are part of, but we want to do this with reflexivity, systematically, value-based, and with rigor (Kversøy, 2015; 2018).
Tolerance, difference and awkward situations
It might be tempting to think of inclusion as simply opening a door and welcoming someone into the
community. However, this is often inadequate. Being let in and even tolerated does not imply inclusion,
connectedness, or belonging. Sicakkan (2003) states that he does not want to be tolerated if this simply
means that he is put up with. Being permitted to attend as a passive spectator is not sufficient. Sicakkan
challenges the notion of tolerance. Inclusion and belonging require you to be of interest, to have the
right to contribute, to be a citizen, to matter and to be missed when you are not there.
Sofie, our aforementioned co-researcher from other projects, is experienced in living with differences.
She is different from most other people in many ways. Even so, she has no other option than to try to
function as best as she can in an environment with people that often act and communicate differently
from herself. She has no choice but to participate in the only ways she can. She is more experienced
than most in handling awkward encounters. She will do her best to make contact but will also choose
to withdraw when the interaction becomes too complicated. She too experiences the feeling of awkwardness. She does sometimes lack the social script needed, but in many cases, she understands the
social situation well. Even when she is in a familiar situation, she most often lacks the communication
skills and speed needed to make social interactions work smoothly. She is more used to and more open
to difference than most but needs help from the majority to make the interaction work and last.
The majority is rarely tuned in on the need for alternative ways of interaction. Anyone who struggles
with written and verbal communication recognizes this problem. When people meet, they talk. They
expect you to be able to reply and answer questions. If they meet you for the first time, they will often
investigate you with well-intended questions, such as: How are you? What is your name? Soon, other
questions might follow like: What did you do today? What school do you attend? Where do you live?
Cogent Social Sciences
9
These questions are examples of ways in which we show interest in others. They are performed with the
best intentions.
Sofie will struggle with all of these questions. What do you think happens when people meet a person that does not have enough words to answer a question? First, they get a bit confused, and then
they will try to fix it by asking more and different questions. The result is often that both parties withdraw and there is just awkwardness left. The lack of alternative ways of interacting leaves both parties
in a state of helplessness.
It is not to be expected that most people will be able to reflect in the moment something awkward
occurs. It is even less to be expected that they will be able to develop new alternative strategies on the
spot. Social interactions are fast, and only the slightest delay is registered and creates uncertainty (Plakias,
2024). De Haas (2020) claims there is a need for knowledge and guidance. We can all do better with
some inside information.
The first step often involves having a mediator present that can clarify the situation. De Haas reminds
us that this responsibility often falls on the already overworked families of the person with a disability.
She thinks that this is an area where the community can contribute with support. She suggests that
trained mediators and other support people could be present in social arenas, where the majority meet
people with intellectual disabilities. We also believe that guiding and educating the majority is an interesting angle. We have some experience with doing just that. Although we have not so far been able to
conduct any systematic research on this, we think this is a promising angle worth exploring further.
Dependency and creating meaning
In our analysis of how to live with differences, we think it can be useful to examine some philosophical
ideas. The first is the concept of dependence (Kittay, 2019). Who are the people that are dependent on
others? Is this something that only concerns people with disabilities? Not much reflection is needed to
understand that it concerns everyone. Maybe some of us experience a brief illusion of being truly independent in the prime of our lives, but if we take a closer look at all the elements that make our lives
function, we will soon notice that we are deeply dependent on others. There seems to be a logical
ethical obligation attached to this realization. If we are more or less dependent on others throughout
our lives, are we also not obligated to accept others’ dependence on us?
It can be tempting to just accept help when we need it, and never think we have a responsibility for
helping in return. This is difficult to defend ethically if we want to take our own dignity as humans in
an interdependent reality seriously. Kittay (2019) explores dependency in light of her relationship with
her daughter. Her daughter, Sesha, has an intellectual and multiple disability. Kittay shows us that
humans are never fully independent. In longer or shorter periods of our lives, we are all completely
vulnerable and deeply dependent on others. Her analysis also highlights that every person, regardless of
ability, has value. Our humanity as individuals counts and contributes in important ways. Kittay claims
that she owes her daughter for the love that she feels and the ideas she receives. The world is different
with her daughter in it. Any average parent will agree that their children are valuable and worthwhile
even during the most dependent periods of their lives.
Kittay not only manages to show the parent perspective on the meaningfulness of caring for one’s
own children in their most dependent phases but also reminds us that dependence concerns every
person. Our lives unavoidably contain many moments of vulnerability and dependence. That makes the
ethical questions deeply relevant for us all. Dependence is not only about the respect and care we owe
each other but also the respect and care we hope to receive ourselves throughout our ever-changing lives.
Davidson (1973) claims that we are even dependent on others to understand our own thoughts. It is
through communication our thoughts become meaningful. There is a reciprocity that is fundamental for
having any meaningful thoughts at all. Helen Keller’s (1959) story can serve as an example. Keller was
born deafblind. During her life, she became an author, disability rights advocate, political activist, and
lecturer. She claimed that she knew the precise moment at which her thoughts began to have meaning.
This happened the first time she discovered the connection between the cold water she was touching
and the signs her teacher was simultaneously making in her hand. Suddenly, she felt as if a light was
turned on in her mind. In the moment she made the connection, she experienced hope for the first
10
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
time. Her mind was set free. Before this moment, her mind had been captivated in darkness and silence.
She called this moment the birthday of her soul.
According to Davidson, I am dependent on others to understand my own thoughts. Keller shows us
how this also was true in her own life challenged with being deafblind. There seems to be ableism in
not doing our best to take part in this collaboration of understanding and meaning when it comes to
people struggling with verbal language. Later we will show how attributing meaning to all forms of
behavior and expressions can be a strategy for socialization and communication with people that seem
very different from ourselves.
Knowledge, reflection, and action are keys to unlocking the mysteries of how humans create meaning
and understand each other. ‘The task of hermeneutics is to clarify this miracle of understanding, which is
not a mysterious communion of souls, but sharing in common meaning’ (Gadamer, 1989, pp. 292).
Humans are constantly driven by the need to understand one another. He claims that understanding is
something that happens if we are open to it. The key is to use our experience without being captivated
by our prejudices, being willing to wonder, and asking basic questions, such as: Who are you? What are
you trying to express to me? What do you like? What do you need? Gadamer (1989) suggests that we
should think of people as having coherent thoughts if we are ever to stand a chance of understanding.
Mietola et al. (2017) share the notion that open-mindedness is important. They also point to the
importance of recognizing the power imbalance present when interacting with people with intellectual
disabilities. This type of interaction requires special attention to vulnerability and interdependence. They
point to the research of Young (1997) and the notion of ‘asymmetrical reciprocity’. They find her ideas
useful in outlining a moral framework for interaction and research with people with intellectual and
multiple disabilities.
(…) ideal communication starts with mutual recognition (…) However, moral respect also entails recognition
of differences between communicative subjects. (…) Young calls for moral humility: acknowledgment that one
cannot know in advance how other people feel and judge. (…) This means that one should listen carefully to
others expressing their needs and views and be willing to learn something new from them. This is all the
more important when the research participants are subject to harmful stereotypes and have little means of
challenging other people’s views about them. (Mietola et al., 2017, pp. 267)
Dennett (1989) supports this idea through the principle of humanity. The principle states that, when
interpreting what another person is expressing, we must assume that this person’s beliefs and desires
are connected to each other and to reality in some way. We must also assign to this person the propositional attitude one supposes that one would have oneself in the same circumstances. These ideas
are important if we are trying to establish an ethical climate for interpreting something expressed in
some way that we are not used to. It supports the critical notion described by Nind and Hewett
(2005). They advocate a respectful approach when interacting with people with more severe intellectual disabilities. They call for valuing them as social and communicative beings whose behaviors are
worthwhile.
Awkwardness
Plakias writes:
Awkwardness is a property that characterizes social situations or interactions when one or more participant(s)
finds themselves lacking the guidance of a script and feels awkward as a result. (…) there are three related
but distinct components of feeling awkward: uncertainty, self-consciousness and discomfort. (Plakias, 2024, p
22-23).
It is useful to know that we are not alone in experiencing discomfort and uncertainty. Most people
entering a social situation that is unknown to them experience the feeling of awkwardness. The reason
for this is simply that we do not know what to do next. Not knowing what to do is unsettling and
unpleasant. The self-consciousness that follows can be all-engulfing.
If we are able to suppress our self-consciousness just a little bit, we might discover that some of us
have to live with ongoing and relentless awkwardness. Not only feeling the awkwardness of constantly
Cogent Social Sciences
11
being reminded that they are conceived as different but also experiencing unwillingly being the source
of igniting the feeling of awkwardness in others. For anyone who has experienced awkwardness, and you
are very special if you never have, we can only imagine what this might be like. Awkwardness can have
serious consequences. It can be deeply exclusive.
(…) awkwardness is worse than we think. It’s not a social triviality, some kind of minor, cosmetic imperfection
on our social facades. Instead, it reveals a way in which we ostracize and punish those who fail to fit into
existing social categories (…). (Plakias, 2024, pp. 4)
Awkwardness can in this way be deeply oppressive. By accepting our feelings of awkwardness as
something that just happens and is beyond our control, we can unintentionally initiate oppression. Used
intentionally, awkwardness can even be ‘weaponized’ (Plakias, 2024). It can be a strategic way to avoid
and exclude others. If it is possible to control this phenomenon, Plakias suggests that it could also be
mobilized as a form of resistance. Although we might not be able to control our initial reactions and
feelings with attention and reflection, awkwardness could be transformed into a tool for change.
By explicitly addressing our awkward encounters, and we all have them, we have one particular project in
mind and that is to ‘un-paralyze’ reflexivity. (…) we will show that by opening up the black box of awkwardness we can progress towards a more inclusive reflexivity (…) we are focused too much on avoiding and
controlling emotions; we would be more comfortable ‘if more of our efforts were directed to the understanding, expression, and reporting them’. (Koning &Ooi, 2013, pp. 17)
Koning and Ooi (2013) suggest that we should avoid controlling the feeling of awkwardness and
rather try to accept and understand it. We have a lot to gain from accepting our awkwardness. At the
moment it is happening, our feeling of awkwardness is telling us something important. It is an indicator
of where we need to pay attention. We are entering an unknown territory and we need to activate our
sensitivity. It is even possible to be prepared. Firstly, just by reminding ourselves that awkward situations
exist. It is a normal thing that we encounter more or less frequently. Secondly, these situations are rarely
critical in the sense that they are dangerous for us. Mostly, they are just unpleasant. Thirdly, there are
many examples of people that prepare themselves for emotionally difficult situations similar to this.
Professionals need to be able to handle a range of emotions specific to their profession (Grossman &
Christensen, 2008; Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Röttger et al., 2021). Police officers and soldiers learn to handle fear
in life-threatening situations. Nurses and doctors learn to accept the responsibility of saving the lives of
others. They encounter situations that are difficult to imagine in advance. Nevertheless, as part of their
professional training and education, they learn to be prepared. They also learn to debrief after experiencing the extreme. Handling awkwardness surely must be less demanding.
We think that it is possible to prepare for awkwardness. We believe that this is also possible for the
majority. Clegg (2012) has some interesting data on what happens when we choose to respond rather
than avoid awkwardness. His participants experienced potential awkward encounters and chose either to
avoid them or to interact. ‘Avoidant responses were associated with a magnification and extension of the
effects of social awkwardness while direct responses were associated with a re-established sense of social
harmony’ (Clegg, 2012, pp. 262). His research clearly supports the idea that accepting your awkwardness
and entering a difficult situation is not only worth it but is also better than the alternative. Accepting
and choosing to enter an awkward situation will contribute to the reestablishing of social confidence. By
contrast, avoidance causes prolonged and magnified negative effects. As we have seen, the negative
effects not only affect oneself but may even affect the person experiencing being avoided even more.
Thus, choosing to enter awkward situations is not only participating in pushing back oppression, but can
also be an important first step to inclusion and belonging.
Being captivated by reactions and habits
Social interactions are guided by social scripts, norms, and habits (Plakias, 2024). We expect social interactions unfolding in familiar ways. When this does not occur, things change rapidly. The speed of social
interaction is relentlessly fast, and we expect them to work seamlessly. Even the smallest imperfection is
noticed and generates unease (Kotsko, 2010). Kotsko uses an example of how easily we manage to pass
12
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
each other on a crowded sidewalk. Most of the time this activity works perfectly. We manage the environment and interactions between other walkers with ease. Even minor misunderstandings are ironed
out with eye contact and coordination. We are also familiar with awkward situations sometimes occurring when we get the interaction wrong. There may be some stepping side to side; we might have to
stop and negotiate for a second; and, if we were not paying enough attention in the first place, we
might even bump into one another with all the kerfuffle that generates.
Social scripts and habits help us navigate. Dewey (1985) has taken an interest in what happens when
our habits are challenged. He was a pragmatic philosopher and educator. He knew that, in real life,
things can become difficult and unpleasant. People frequently experience things that are new to them
and often become stuck in confusion. He explains why. His explanation might shed light on why awkwardness occurs. Dewey claims that people meet the world with what they know. They actively use their
habits. This is very sensible. Our habits have developed through our experiences. In addition, they have
developed through acquiring knowledge based on the experiences of others. This helps us from making
the same mistakes again and again.
One way of understanding a society’s traditions can even be to see them as the collective habits of
a group preserved over time (Kversøy, 2004). When we encounter something new, we try to act smartly.
We act based on what we already know. Integrated habits are effective. They emerge in the form of
reactions. A habit preserves energy. It does not waste time on reflection.
On the one hand, habits are a great help, but on the other hand, if they are wrong, they may just as
well stop us from understanding. Since they are without reflection as they emerge, they are also a form
of closed-mindedness. In such cases, our habits can hold us captive. Dewey compares closed-mindedness
to a mind made of wood. Awkwardness is often just a result of being out of options. We have encountered a situation that is new to us. We have mobilized our habits to deal with it. We have further experience that our habits did not work. The result is predictable; we are confused and often also embarrassed.
We are clueless about what to do next. We experience awkwardness and feel an urge to withdraw.
Dewey does not ask us to abandon our habits. They are important. Alternatively, it may be tempting
to take a chance with a random course of action. Dewey points out that neither being captivated by our
habits nor choosing a blind impulse are ideal options. He advocates a third option. This is to meet new
experiences with knowledge, open-mindedness, and reflection. This is very different from mindless openness. He urges us to meet new experiences with our knowledge and, at the same time, be open to
adjustments through reflection. To have hospitality of mind is also to be willing to accept that our interpretations might be wrong.
Dewey agrees with Gadamer (1989) and promotes open-mindedness and an investigative attitude. He
claims they are central to gaining insight, understanding, and change. Dewey describes this as having
hospitality of mind. For him, the essential moral interest is to be willing to learn from every contact
in life.
Knowingness and the value of people who know you
As we have seen, handling differences requires an alert, open-minded, and investigative attitude. For
people with intellectual disabilities, who also struggle with verbal communication, it is also essential to
have people around them that know them well (Maes et al., 2020). Developing high-quality relationships
requires time, patience, and closeness. Maes et al. (2020) claim that knowingness is the key to creating
shared meaning and belonging. They point to families as invaluable sources of knowledge. Families are
often committed for as long as they can manage it. In many cases, it is only death that separates them
from their loved ones. Being together for an entire life mounts up to something. The knowledge they
accumulate is difficult to overrate. Tapping into this knowingness can uncover knowledge that can be
next to impossible to reveal in any other way. Identifying and preserving this knowledge can save time
and tear down many obstacles.
Not having people around you who know you well can be critical. People who struggle with verbal
communication are even at risk of losing their own life story (McCormack, 2020). The implications are
difficult to process. Think of yourself in a situation where no one knows you. At the same time, picture
yourself not being able to explain who you are or what you have experienced through your life. If the
Cogent Social Sciences
13
situation continues over time, your life story may become difficult to hold on to. It may become impossible for others to retrieve. Most of us carry around our own life stories as memories. We keep them alive
by sharing them. Sharing creates meaning.
Part of belonging is building a shared life history. We strengthen our relationships by reminding each
other of the things we have done and experienced together. We say things like ‘Can you remember
when we …’. We also investigate each other’s lives. It is a way of showing interest in other people. All
these interpersonal rituals are very difficult to participate in if you struggle with verbal communication.
It is nice to be told stories of what we have done together, but it is even nicer to be able to tell them
ourselves.
In our own family, we are aware of this challenge. One of our solutions is to be very systematic with
taking pictures and videos. We most often know what Sofie wants to document. In contrast, we are
constantly reminded of this very important task every time we forget to document something Sofie later
wants to share. Every time we forget, we may be depriving her of the possibility of telling the story
about that part of her life. We cannot take pictures and videos all the time and of everything, but we
can try to catch the highlights that can be fun to share later.
We experience the value of pictures and videos as a way of preserving personal history. In addition,
we cannot overrate the value of touchscreen devices that contain simple apps that organize and provide
access to pictures and videos (Kversøy et al., 2020). Sofie has had access to generic touchscreen devices
since the age of six. At the age of 19, she is an expert user. The user-friendly interface on modern touchscreen tablets makes them accessible even without reading and writing skills.
Sofie has easy access to more than 50.000 pictures and more than 2000 videos. She does not need
any help to navigate this vast collection. She often uses her tablet for video- and picture-supported
communication. The easily accessible tablet gives her the possibility to relive cherished memories and
sharing her fondest memories with others. She is happy to share with anyone who is willing to take the
time. This also means that she is not dependent on anyone to access and share her history. We worry
that the applications will not last a lifetime and choose for this reason to store all pictures and videos
on more than one major picture-organizing application.
Knowingness, both the kind you get from your close family and friends, and the kind that is preserved
digitally, can be essential for preserving an identity when you struggle with verbal and written communication. Both are very useful when new people want to engage in social interaction. We experience that
the value of becoming more independent in the ability to share one’s own life story is hard to overrate.
We have many rituals in our family that come into action when new people enter our lives. We tell
stories and share tips on what works and does not. Sofie will join and ask everyone if they want to see
her pictures and videos. It is obvious that we are doing the same thing. We want every new person
entering our lives to know us, and we want to contribute to this happening.
Playfulness and the urge to communicate
Watson has conducted research on playfulness. In her article (Watson, 2020) ‘Crossing the Wobbly Bridge –
An inclusive approach to researching playfulness and children with profound and multiple learning disabilities’, she shares the optimistic view that almost all children with profound and multiple learning
disabilities show signs of playfulness. She points to the research of McConkey (2006) and claims that the
exceptions are those very few that are extremely sleepy or in constant pain. In practical terms, this
means that when we meet a person with an intellectual disability of any degree and age, there are very
good reasons to assume that this person wishes to initiate contact and share playful interaction.
There seems to be a fundamentally universal human urge to connect, play, and communicate. Watson
also shares insights from the research of McInnes (2012). McInnes elaborates that playfulness is an attitude and disposition that is more about the person as an active player than the more distanced perspective of playing as an objective occurrence between people. Being a player is important, even for
those with the most demanding disabilities. The urge for playfulness is closely connected to the urge of
being an active participant.
Knowing that most people you meet want contact, and most often are playful, is important if you feel
unsure about how to approach someone who is different from yourself. Watson (2020) elaborates and
14
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
shows that playfulness promotes agency. Being a spectator of something playful can be fun, but being
active is even more fun. She encourages us to dare to cross the wobbly bridge and instigate fun interactions. Playfulness can be hard to explain, but when you see it, you recognize it. Even a moment of
engagement and playful contact is valuable.
Our daily experiences confirm this. A stressful situation can be easily defused with some power posing, funny voices, roleplay, dancing, or just a nice little burp or playful sneeze (never fails). Slapstick
humor is a central component of our daily routine. It isn’t complicated. It is mostly about being willing
to be present, hang out and have fun.
Self-determination and happiness
Being active rather than being a spectator is also about self-determination. It is about experiencing that we
can make things happen at will. It is about taking control. This is an important aspect of inclusion and
belonging. It should not be a surprise that this is also a fundamental factor in experiencing happiness
(Garrels & Palmer, 2020; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1998; Wehmeyer & Shogren, 2017). Wehmeyer and Schwartz
(1998) show that the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities is closely related to self-determination.
We argue that the development of self-determination can be facilitated (Kversøy et al., 2022). One
such strategy is to take any expressions meaning yes or no seriously. In our interaction with Sofie, her
decisions are respected even when they are perceived as impractical or in conflict with our own wishes.
We try as hard as we can to respect her choices even when she does not want to do something that
has been planned. It can be important things like going to school or not so important things (depending on who you ask), like what to wear on certain occasions. As Sofie is a keen and self-confident negotiator, we often engage in tough negotiations. Sometimes, even persuasion and bribery is attempted
– from all participants. However, if she stands firm in her decision, and she often does, she will most
often experience her will winning and her wishes happening. Most importantly, she knows she has this
power, and she knows that she can win if she fights for what she thinks is important.
The experience of being able to make decisions seems to build confidence, autonomy, and initiative.
Another complementary strategy is to welcome and preserve all forms of initiative. When an initiative is
registered, it is acted upon as often as possible and as soon as possible. If the initiative is difficult to
realize there and then, there will be an instant follow-up dialogue. If possible, there will immediately be
made plan to make it happen. It can be that something needs to be ordered or that there might be a
better time in the future to make it happen. This means that Sofie constantly experiences things happening at her will. This is a powerful thing. ‘Self-determination is an aspect of participation. It is the
ability and freedom to make one’s own choices and is essential for optimal functioning and well-being’
(Bucholz et al., 2017, pp. 1468). Bucholz et al. (2017) find support to this claim in the research of Ryan
and Deci (2017).
Intensive interaction
Nind and Hewett (2005) suggest a way of approaching someone perceived as very different from ourselves. This person might exhibit a behavior that seems unusual to us. The person may even seem to
lack or have very unconventional ways of communicating. They have given the strategy the name
Intensive Interaction. The essential principle of Intensive Interaction is mutual enjoyment:
Intensive Interaction is essentially an approach that is respectful of the individual – valuing the person as a
social and communicative being whose behaviors are worthwhile (…) Intensive Interaction is concerned with
negotiation and participation as opposed to dominance and compliance. (…) The central theme of mutual
pleasure is linked with the philosophy of participation. (Nind & Hewett, 2005, pp. 14–15)
This strategy is straightforward in several ways. The main goal is to make every interaction as mutually
enjoyable as possible and to respond with sensitivity to each behavior. In this way, we are making a
respectful communicative act that shows our intent for social interaction and communication.
Their strategy was presented by Nind & Hewett in 1994 in the first edition of their book: Access to
Communication: Developing the Basics of Communication with People with Severe Learning Difficulties
Cogent Social Sciences
15
Through Intensive Interaction. The book was a culmination of practical experiences and experimentation
with communication, social activities, and building relationships with people with profound and multiple
disabilities since the mid-1980s. People with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities were at this
time often understood as incapable of meaningful social interaction. In contrast, they found that the
group of people they were working with were not demonstrating behavioral difficulties as often claimed
but rather demonstrating communication difficulties. They discovered that it was possible to establish
relationships, be social, and communicate.
This has important pedagogical implications. The experiences of Nind and Hewett give us reason to
expect that every person we meet is interested in communication. With patience and an intent of mutual
enjoyment, we have a way of approaching someone that we do not understand yet. We can confirm the
importance of mutual enjoyment. Just hanging out and having fun works. Enjoying music and dancing
works. Humor works. Doing playful stuff together works.
There is a need for a toolbox
What seems obvious is the need for tools and strategies. The goal of this article has been to indicate
what these tools could be and where they can be found. We have shown how we are all deeply dependent on others both for survival and even for understanding our own thoughts. We seem to owe something to each other. People are worthwhile and valuable even in their most vulnerable states, not least
because we are all totally vulnerable in multiple stages of our lives. We have seen that creating meaning
is about asking questions and being investigative of the people we encounter. It can be difficult when
the other person struggles with verbal communication, but family, friends, pictures and videos can help
us get to know the other person.
We have closely examined awkwardness and how this is most often a spontaneous reaction when we
encounter something unexpected and different for the first time. We do not have to accept awkwardness
as something that is uncontrollable. It can be mobilized as a form of resistance. Awkwardness can even
be an indicator of where we need to make changes. In this way, awkwardness can be a powerful tool
instead of a destructive phenomenon.
There is a need to be exposed to differentness and learn to endure and tolerate things that we do
not understand. It can be reassuring to know that the possible initial feelings of awkwardness are common and often mutual. When our habits are challenged, awkwardness and even antipathy can be
expected as normal human reactions. Dewey (1985) claims that this is the way our mind protects us.
Making sense of the world around us is very much about identifying what is known, and reacting and
acting in accordance with what we think will work. The source of choosing direction is usually our
experience.
This means that, when we experience something that is very different, there are reasonable reasons
to our reactions. Our unreflected reactions are often just that – reactions that just happen. A person who
is regularly exposed to differentness can learn to expect the unexpected. This openness is a constant
wondering about the strangeness of our surroundings and a willingness to investigate and search for
meaning.
Knowledge of some of these basics can be very useful. We are not that different. We all have many
of the same basic needs. We can assume that someone who at first seems different from ourselves is
also social, likes to hang out with other people, and likes to have fun. Hanging out, in its most basic
form, is just about being beside each other. A person with a more severe degree of intellectual disability
will most often have a care person nearby that can facilitate. Getting to know someone with an intellectual disability can be fun. The rules are simple.
Creating the capacity to live with difference and achieve a sense of belonging
Nind and Strnadová (2020) highlight that we should not think of communities as pre-existing.
Communities of people, whether different or not, develop through interaction and communication.
Inclusion and belonging are the result of actively seeking each other. We are all dependent on one
another. No exception. Some of us though, need to take a larger part of the responsibility to make it
16
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
happen. This is true in most situations. Some of us, in addition, need that the majority endures the
awkwardness, accepts the differences, and keeps wondering and exploring until moments of common
meaning and reciprocal social instances occur.
The key insights from this article can be summarized in the concern that people with intellectual
disabilities of more severe degrees are often excluded from participating in communities and are missing from most local arenas of social interaction. Differences are demanding and awkwardness often gets
in the way. This is emotionally challenging and raises the need for ways of handling the awkwardness
that emerges. Plakias (2024) shows us that awkwardness is not a triviality. It can be deeply oppressive
and trigger social exclusion. The research of Koning and Ooi (2013) shows us that confronting awkwardness and enduring it has the potential of un-paralyzing reflexivity. Clegg (2012) claims that his research
shows that avoidance is associated with magnification of negative feelings, while handling the awkwardness was associated with re-establishing a sense of harmony. Plakias (2024) even suggests moments
of awkwardness as a starting point for resistance with a potential to be transformed into a tool
for change.
Defeating exclusion and ableism is possible but it requires the majority to learn new strategies and
develop new understanding and attitudes. It can be of great importance to use the school years to get
used to each other’s differences. It is a question of including disabilities as part of the diversity we are
expected to learn to collaborate with in a well-functioning society. In adult life options for inclusion,
belonging and development get less easy to find. We know there are people that are interested, but we
need to find them and engage them.
Learning to handle differentness when interacting with people with intellectual disabilities of more
severe degrees does not need to be hopeless or even difficult. A basic well-tried attitude is explained
through the principles of Intensive Interaction. Nind and Hewett (2005) show that it is about having
respect for the individual. Every person is a social and communicative being. Their behaviors are worthwhile. Mutual enjoyment and pleasure are keys to participation. Simple thoughtful playfulness usually
works great.
We recommend collaborative research. Communities and social arenas can be challenged to be more
inclusive. There is a need though for people in addition to parents to get involved. Community education through local development projects can be a way to move forward. Maybe new social arenas need
to be created. Don’t forget those that live with their disabilities. Don’t forget those with the knowledge
and the close knowingness of the individual. For example, we hope for future projects containing community gardening, open-for-all arenas for music and dancing, and groups for tandem cycling. We also
see the need for research into how to find and engage local human resources that probably do exist.
To belong is to be included through participation. Belonging is about contributing and counting.
Interdependency is not a special challenge that is only true for the very different few. Interdependency
is a deep part of the human condition. It is what human relationships are all characterized by. It is a
feature of existence. We continue to survive because we are more than one.
Pushing the boundaries for inclusion is therefore not a special task that needs to be done as charity for a
challenged group of people, but something we need to do together continuously as a diverse interdependent
community of people that all need to feel they belong. (Kversøy, 2021, pp. 104)
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the work carried out by Sofie Daae Kversøy and its significant contribution to this
study. Without her, we would be far more ignorant than we are.
Authors’ contribution
Both authors have contributed to development of the concept, design, interpretation and drafting the text. Both
have contributed to reviewing the text critically for important intellectual content, final approval of the version to
be published and have an agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions
related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors
have read and approved the final work.
Cogent Social Sciences
17
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The authors have not received any external funding. The work hours used to produce this article is financed within
the normal given research and development (R&D) time for academic staff working at the University of
South-Eastern Norway.
About the authors
Kjartan Skogly Kversøy is currently working as a Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway. He teaches and
does research within teacher education, special teacher education, action research and disability studies. He has
written books and articles about participation and inclusion in research, career guidance, ethics, development work
and action research. He is deeply concerned with the challenges of participation in society, education and research
for people with intellectual disabilities. Belonging is an important keyword. In 2021, Kversøy and his research partners gained international attention for their work with inclusion. One of the co-researchers in his team has an intellectual disability. One of the aims of their collaboration has been to show that touchscreen technology makes it
possible for people that struggle with written and verbal language to participate in remote communication.
Eva Daae Kversøy is currently working as an Assistant Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway. She
teaches and does research within disability studies, nursing education, team development and leadership in hospitals. Kversøy has a special interest in facilitating self-determination for people with intellectual disabilities and creating space for value-based leadership in healthcare organizations.
ORCID
Kjartan Skogly Kversøy
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5315-0032
Eva Daae Kversøy
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8165-5900
Data availability statement
No data were generated in this work.
References
Abbott, S., & McConkey, R. (2006). The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by people with intellectual disabilities.
Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 10(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629506067618
Ager, A., Myers, F., Kerr, P., Myles, S., & Green, A. (2001). Moving home: Social integration for adults with intellectual
disabilities resettling into community provision. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 14(4), 392–
400. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-3148.2001.00082.x
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology. New Vistas for Qualitative Research. (2nd edition). Sage.
Buchholz, M., Ferm, U., & Holmgren, K. (2018). ‘That is how I speak nowadays’ – experiences of remote communication among persons with communicative and cognitive disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(12), 1468–1479.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1300340
Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (2002). Degrees of exclusion: Developing a dynamic multidimensional measure. In J. Hills, J. Le Grand & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding social exclusion (pp 30-43). Oxford University Press.
Clegg, J. W. (2012). The importance of feeling awkward: A dialogical narrative phenomenology of socially awkward
situations. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2010.500357
Davidson, D. (1973). Radical interpretation. Dialectica, 27(3/4), 313–328. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42968535
de Haas, C. (2020). Singing together: Friends’ and families’ perspectives of possible ways to be included in society.
In Nind, M. & Strnadová, I. (Eds.), Belonging for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: pushing the
boundaries of inclusion. Routledge.
Dennett, D. (1989). The intentional stance. MIT Press.
Dewey, J. (1985). Democracy and education. Southern Illinois University Press.
Engeland, J., Strand, B. H., Innstrand, S. T., & Langballe, E. M. (2021). Participation in employment and day care for
adults with intellectual disabilities: Equal access for all? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34(3),
752–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12850
18
K. S. KVERSØY AND E. D. KVERSØY
Engeland, J., & Langballe, E. M. (2018). Voksne og eldre med utviklingshemning og dagens bruk av samarbeidsfora
i kommunene - Hvor mange er i jobb, hvor mange mangler tilbud og hva er alternativene? Nasjonal spørreundersøkelse og analyse av nasjonale registerdata [Adults and ageing people with intellectual disabilities and present use of collaboration forums in the municipalities - how many are employed, how many lack employment, and
what are the alternatives? National survey and analyses of national register data]. Ageing and Health. https://www.
aldringoghelse.no/alle-artikler/mange-voksnemed-utviklingshemning-har-ikke-plass-i-arbeidstiltak-eller-dagse nter/
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a Free Society. NLB
Foster, S. (2020). Approaching a person with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: What do you think? What
do you do?. In: Nind, M. & Strnadová, I. (Eds.), Belonging for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: Pushing the Boundaries of Inclusion. Routledge.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. Continuum
Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and Method. (2nd edition). Sheed & Ward.
Garrels, V., & Palmer, S. B. (2020). Student-directed learning: A catalyst for academic achievement and self-determination for
students with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 24(4), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629519840526
Grace, J., Nind, M., de Haas, C., & Hope, J. (2024). Expanding possibilities for inclusive research: Learning from people
with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities and decolonizing research. Social Sciences, 13(1), 37. https://doi.
org/10.3390/socsci13010037
Grossman, D., & Christensen, L. W. (2008). On combat: The psychology and physiology of deadly conflict in war and in
peace. (3rd ed.). PPCT Research Publications (PDF) The Effectiveness of Combat Tactical Breathing as Compared with
Prolonged Exhalation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343451194_The_Effectiveness_of_Combat_Tactical_
Breathing_as_Compared_with_Prolonged_Exhalation [accessed Feb 10 2025].
Hall, S. (1993). Culture, community, nation. Cultural Studies, 7(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502389300490251
Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating Ableism in policy and practice. Harvard Education Press.
Hehir, T., & Katzman, L. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. Jossey-Bass.
Høyland, K., Hatling, M., & Halvorsen, T. (2021). Likestilt, normalisert og inkludert? Erfaringer med kjøp av egen bolig for
utviklingshemmede. Sintef Akademisk Forlag.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness.
Delta.
Keller, H. (1959). The story of my life: With her letters. Hodder & Stoughton.
Kittay, E. F. (2019). Learning from my daughter: The value and care of disabled minds. Oxford University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190844608.001.0001
Koning, J., & Ooi, C. (2013). Awkward encounters and ethnography. Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management: An International Journal, 8(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641311327496
Kotsko, A. (2010). Awkwardness: An Essay. ZerO Books.
Kversøy, K. S. (2021). Belonging for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: Pushing the boundaries of inclusion. Journal of Educational Thought/Revue De la Pensée Educative, 54(1), 99–104.
Kversøy, K. S. (2018). Relevant forskning for hvem? Relevans for dem forskningen involverer gjennom utvidede
muligheter for medvirkning. Forskning og Forandring, 1(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.23865/fof.v1.1220
Kversøy, K. S. (2015). Metodeeksperimenter med radikal medvirkning i utdanning og forskning: Et aksjonforskningssamarbeid med et kull masterstudenter i yrkespedagogikk. Roskilde Universitet. https://forskning.ruc.dk/en/publications/
metodeeksperimenter-med-radikal-medvirkning-i-utdanning-og-forskn
Kversøy, K. S. (2004). Om formidling og forståelse I den praktiskmoralske diskursen Universitetet I Oslo https://www.duo.
uio.no/handle/10852/24891
Kversøy, K. S., Alhassan, A.-R., Kellems, R., Kversøy, S. D., & Cusworth, Z. (2022). Doing and talking: People with intellectual disabilities’ handling of challenges of remote communication. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 69(1), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1958200
Kversøy, K. S., Alhassan, A. R. K., Kversøy, E. D., & Kversøy, S. D. (2019). How can people with intellectual disabilities
use YouTube as an alternative search engine on the internet. Indian Journal of Career and Livelihood Planning, 7(1),
45–49.
Kversøy, K. S., Kellems, R. O., Kuyini Alhassan, A.-R., Bussey, H. C., & Kversøy, S. D. (2020). The emerging promise of
touchscreen devices for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(4), 70.
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4040070
Kversøy, K. S., & Kversøy, S. D. (2018). Exploring career possibilities for people with intellectual disabilities. Indian
Journal of Career and Livelihood Planning, 7(1), 39–47.
Maes, B., Penne, A., Vastmans, K., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2020). Inclusions and participation of students with profound
and intellectual disabilities. In: Nind, M. & Strnadová, I. (Eds.), Belonging for people with profound intellectual and
multiple disabilities: Pushing the boundaries of inclusion (pp 41-58). Routledge.
McConkey, R. (2006). Realizing the potential of play for ALL children, PMLD Link, 18(3), Issue 55, 8–10.
McCormack, N. (2020). A trip to the caves: Making life story work inclusive and accessible. In: Nind, M. & Strnadová,
I. (Eds.), Belonging for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: Pushing the boundaries of inclusion.
Routledge.
Cogent Social Sciences
19
McInnes, K. (2012). Opportunities for playful expressions of wellbeing. in D. Watson, C. Emery, and P. Bayliss with M.
Boushel and K. McInnes (Eds.), Children’s social and emotional wellbeing in schools: A critical perspective (pp.143–
156). Policy Press.
Mietola, R., Miettinen, S., & Vehmas, S. (2017). Voiceless subjects? Research ethics and persons with profound intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
45579.2017.1287872
Nind, M., & Hewett, H. (2005). Access to Communication. Developing basic communication with people who have severe
learning difficulties. (2nd edition). David Fulton Publishers.
Nind, M., & Hewett, H. (1994). Access to communication: Developing the basics of communication with people with severe
learning difficulties through intensive interaction. David Fulton Publishers.
Nind, M. & Strnadová, I. (Eds.) (2020). Belonging for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: Pushing
the boundaries of inclusion. Routledge.
Patel, D. R., Cabral, M. D., Ho, A., & Merrick, J. (2020). A clinical primer on intellectual disability. Translational Pediatrics,
9(Suppl 1), S23–S35. https://doi.org/10.21037/tp.2020.02.02
Plakias, A. (2024). Awkwardness: A theory. Oxford University Press.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and
wellness. Guilford Publications.
Röttger, S., Theobald, D. A., Abendroth, J., & Jacobsen, T. (2021). The effectiveness of combat tactical breathing as
compared with prolonged exhalation. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 46(1), 19–28. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10484-020-09485-w
Scott-Villiers, P. (2014). Gadamer, Hans-Georg. In Coghland, David & Brydon-Miller, Mary (red.) (2014). The Sage
Encyclopedia of Action Research. London: Sage
Sicakkan, H. (2003). Politics, wisdom and diversity. Or why I don’t want to be tolerated. Norwegian Journal of Migration
Research, 4 (1), 32–44.
Watson, D. (2020). Crossing the wobbly bridge: An inclusive approach to researching playfulness and children with
profound and multiple disabilities. In Nind, M. & Strnadová, I. (Eds.), Belonging for People with Profound Intellectual
and Multiple Disabilities: Pushing the Boundaries of Inclusion (pp.81-97). Routledge.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The relationship between self-determination and quality of life for adults
with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33(1), 3–12.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2017). The development of self-determination during adolescence. In M. Wehmeyer,
K. Shogren, T. Little, & S. Lopez (Eds.), Development of Self-Determination through the Life-Course (pp. 89–98).
Springer.
Young, I. M. (1997). Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy. Princeton University Press.