Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Introduction
According to the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics (2010a), lifestyle trends are
defined by people’s interests, social interactions and personal characteristics. Their findings
outlined in the latest publication suggest that advancements in technology have greatly
improved access to information, thus providing access to a wider choice of leisure activities
and entertainment facilities. If leisure is defined here as "free time" (National Centre for
Social Research, 2010), then the two most popular activities for men and women in England
are watching television and socialising with friends and family (Office for National Statistics,
2010a).
The construction and maintenance of social relationships retains a prominent position within
British society; although the method of communication now varies substantially, largely in
line with variations in age and gender. Irrespective of lifestyle choices and social preferences,
the data suggests that the opportunity to participate, in leisure activities and the formation of
social relationships is readily available to the majority (Office for National Statistics, 2010a).
As such, it is reasonable to ask, what barriers and opportunities exist for disabled people
when they attempt to access the leisure industry or establish social relationships? With the
United Kingdom government continuing in its attempt to achieve disability equality (Prime
Minister Strategy Unit, 2005), there is a recognition that disabled people should have full
equal access to all forms of communal and social life. The importance of participation in this
context has even been recognised at the United Nations. The Convention on the Rights of
People with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) marked a change in opportunities for
disabled people, ensuring that disabled people were recognised as having rights,
responsibilities and the capability to make life-affecting decisions. Article 30 of the
convention (United Nations, 2006) clearly states disabled people shall have full access to all
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
cultural activities and leisure services, be enabled to develop and utilise their creative
potential and be recognised for their cultural identity on an equal basis with others.
By reviewing academic literature, this paper will assess the opportunities for disabled people
to access leisure activities, including segregated facilities which accommodate only disabled
people, as well as initiatives which aim to bridge the social gap between nondisabled and
disabled people through leisure activity. The paper will also address social isolation and
analyse disabled people's opportunities to establish and maintain "normal" relationships. Data
from leisure services will be provided to illustrate the marginalisation of disabled people in
this context. Finally, suggested improvements will be reviewed to ensure disabled people
have opportunities to participate in leisure activities and establish social relationships on an
equal basis with nondisabled people.
Defining the Key Concepts
The problematic task of defining “leisure interest” has plagued statisticians and academics
alike; this has been caused by a shifting opinion in the type of activity understood to
constitute a “leisure activity”, and its relative position within an individual’s general
“lifestyle” (Gershuny, 1986). For many years, leisure statistics were considered a
complimentary extension to work patterns and could only be reviewed in the context of
employment in voluntary or paid work (Hawrylyshn, 1978). Now, statistical literature does
not segregate leisure activity; rather it tends to reorganise activities not associated with work
into a "lifestyle" chapter (Office for National Statistics, 2010a).
According to Gershuny and Fisher (1999), leisure can be defined in three distinct forms: first
is the definition of leisure as time spent once "work" has finished and when all obligations
have been met. This also includes aspects of domestic production and therefore focuses on
the final act of “work” and the first act of “leisure” i.e. eating a meal, rather than the task of
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
cooking. The second definition refers to leisure as a means through which social status is
asserted. Bourdieu (1987) refers to leisure as the creation of an identity through the
combination of financial resources and cultural knowledge. This perspective is in contrast to
the trickle-down effect (Bramham and Wagg, 2009) whereby the leisure habits of those with
a higher social status are mimicked by those less privileged. Hirsch (1977) considers this
definition to demonstrate a bleak reality, as the fixation to emulate superior social classes will
inevitably result in a failure for the individual to gain any social advancement. Finally, Young
and Willmott (1973) perceived leisure as a concept defined by the individual.
Parker (1976) using Young and Willmott's definition describes leisure activities by functional
significance. Such activities can be pigeonholed into three areas: those which aid in physical
recuperation (visiting a beautician after working in an industrial setting), those which reestablish creative intuition (sitting in a public park and listening to the sounds after working
in an office), or those which exist to construct an alternative persona (a nurse enjoying a
weekend of participating in extreme sports). This supports the principal view that “leisure”
can be interpreted as a product of extremely diverse activities; some individuals consider paid
employment to be a form of leisure, while others will define it as spending time with family.
Regardless of whether paid employment can be considered a recreational activity, “leisure”
as defined here includes more predictable recreational activities (Jones, 1986), such as
participation in sports, watching television or going to a concert.
This paper will also analyse the opportunities for disabled people to establish social
relationships. There has been significant academic debate surrounding the definition of the
term; in its simplest, a social relationship represents an association between people based
upon matching interests, social or sexual attraction or solidarity (Kelley, 1983). Such
relationships involve a level of interdependence (Tracey, 2004) resulting in changes to the
individual impacting both parties.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
According to Levinger (1983), social relationships progress through a five stage model: the
first stage, Acquaintance, initiates when the individuals meet; the outcome is determined by
first impressions and the ability to sustain previous relationships. The second stage, “BuildUp” refers to the formation of trust and, in some circumstances, the establishment of a care
component. At the third stage, Continuation, a mutual agreement is created through the
achievement of long-term goals, i.e. long-term friendship or romantic relationship. Even
though stage four may not occur, Deterioration of a relationship is always possible; this can
be caused by resentment or boredom. Although individuals can often find a way to resolve a
deteriorating relationship, if the issue is a loss of trust or betrayal the relationship is likely to
end (Wright, 1984). The final stage is the inevitable Termination, which can occur through
death or separation.
The focus here will be on how disabled people establish "normal" relationships, in relation to
the creation of a platonic or romantic relationship under "natural circumstances". While the
impact of personal assistants and carers will be addressed, as well the use of paid sex
workers, the emphasis remains on disabled people's attempt to construct long-term
relationships with people who do not belong to the above professions.
In order to effectively analyse disabled people's opportunities to access leisure activities and
establish social relationships all data will be assessed in relation to the seven principles that
indicate the severity of "social structure" discrimination against disabled people (Davis,
1990). The seven elements, coined "the seven needs of disabled people" include: information,
counselling, housing, technical aids, personal assistance, transport and access. To eliminate
inequality, the seven needs must be considered a priority before addressing secondary issues
such as employment, education and leisure (Derbyshire County Council, 1986), as the
inability to secure any of the seven elements can create further struggle for disabled people to
successfully navigate later issues. According to Davis (1990), the seven needs can operate as
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
a tool to identify those areas of societal structure that need attention to expedite full
participation and equality for disabled people. Therefore, disabled people's access to leisure
activities will be analysed using the framework of the "seven needs of disabled people”, and
the inclusion of attitudinal issues which can create barriers, especially in terms of disabled
people’s attempt to construct identities (Lenney and Sercombe, 2002).
Access to Leisure
Disabled people are excluded from full participation within most mainstream environments,
especially education and work (Appleby, 1993); a situation which can lead to the perception
that disabled people have more time to pursue leisure activities (Murray, 2002). This, of
course, is untrue (Burchardt, 2000), the reality being disabled people experience a greater
difficulty when accessing leisure facilities compared to their nondisabled counterparts
(Aitchison, 2000).
One barrier appears to be either a lack of information, or the misinterpretation of available
information relating to the participation of disabled people (Davis, 1990). The difficulty for
leisure providers in understanding the concept of "inclusion" illustrates why there is a need
for information. According to (Murray, 2002), nondisabled people assume that disability
related "inclusion" is an issue to be explained solely by disabled people. Furthermore, many
disabled people are not empowered to understand concepts such as, "participation and
independence" (Petrie, Egharevba, Oliver, Poland, 2000). The lack of information
surrounding these terms creates false interpretations, which then manifest as a general
withdrawal of disabled individuals from leisure opportunities. The notion of independence
often translates into "doing something on one's own", therefore implying that inclusion is
achievable through independence (Fine and Gelndinning, 2005). Nevertheless, for many,
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
accessible information including the awareness of its availability is not directed towards
disabled people, meaning they have little or no inclusion (Nind and Seale, 2009).
A similar approach can be taken to understanding participation, as many mainstream
environments perceive the term as a situation where disabled people contribute to an activity;
the implication being that those who cannot contribute will not participate. Yet, it is not only
terms of empowerment which need to be adopted by leisure facilities and disabled people.
Understanding key initiatives of self-directed support, i.e. direct payments, will ensure that
disabled people with the information to make empowered choices, will benefit from access to
leisure activities (Abbott and McConkey, 2006). Whilst it is vital to promote choice, for
many who are not in receipt of self-directed support, clear understanding is needed to ensure
the accessible information is available to explain the role of such support, regardless of
choice to use it.
Furthermore, leisure facilities and similar environments must take
responsibility for ensuring individuals, regardless of support package, experience equal
access to all initiatives (Murray, 2002).
A useful indicator for disabled people's participation is the emotional response to previous or
future participatory episodes. For many disabled people, fear of ridicule or rejection can
override the desire to access leisure activities (Fullagar and Owler, 1998). According to
(Booth and Booth, 1996), people with learning difficulties are conscious that their appearance
to nondisabled peers; lead to a perception of inferiority. Thompson and Emira (2011)
concluded that the attitudes of staff working in leisure facilities affected disabled people's
motivation to attend, as the fear of bullying and categorisation as vulnerable lead to a "selffulfilling prophecy" which saw social isolation as the preference.
Parents of disabled children have noted a lack of empathy from professionals towards the
needs of disabled children accessing sports and leisure (Tregaskis, 2003). This creates a
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
focus which places the restrictions to participate with the biological limitations of their
impairment, rather than failings in society’s infrastructure. This also causes ignorance of
disability issues amongst nondisabled people. The issue over empathetic understanding
generates tension over whether disabled people should disclose their impairment and needs in
order to be situated within the mainstream, or spend their leisure time in segregated schemes
which specialise in accommodating disabled people (Carr, 2004).
Alongside those facilities discussed above housing needs to be analysed to address
opportunities in leisure, when considering that the majority of leisure activities occur within
the home environment (Office for National Statistics, 2010), and disabled people - especially
people with learning difficulties - are most likely to pursue their leisure interests there
(Devas, 2003). According to King, Petrenchik, Law and Hurley (2009), disabled children are
usually excluded from domestic leisure groups, because of the varied impractical designs of
homes. Subsequently, disabled people are excluded from the planning of future events, and
left to participate in leisure activities of a solitary nature (Devas, 2003).
It can be argued that nondisabled people find pleasure in pursuing solidarity leisure activities
within their home. However, disabled people excluded from social environments also face
barriers when attempting isolated activities. (Murray, 2002) explains how some people with
visual impairments are unable to experience the latest forms of entertainment, i.e. new and
popular books, because publishers delay production of accessible formats; this creates further
isolation, as discussions on current topics will have passed by the time the individual has the
opportunity for inclusion.
For disabled people, the home can be a barrier. Connor (1997) noted how disabled children
limited their social activities because parents and carers were apprehensive about allowing
their child to engage in events without their supervision, while for people with learning
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
difficulties, staying within the home created substantial frustration as parental monitoring
ensured they could not pursue their own interests without external involvement (Murray and
Penman, 2000).
Irrespective of the location of leisure activities, there is no question that assistive technology
has improved quality-of-life for disabled people in a more holistic sense, with technology
currently in the mainstream market providing opportunities to meet the requirements of
various impairments (Dewsbury et al, 2002). Mobile phones, for example, are now equipped
with technology to provide leisure activities to the user i.e. listen to music or watch a film,
whilst simultaneously providing a direct line to personal assistants and alarms to become
aware of time-related impairment needs. Such devices eliminate the need to have specialised
equipment, which carry additional financial implications, and the potential for user
stigmatisation or subsequent issues of inaccessibility (Harris, 2010). Nevertheless, the answer
for disabled people’s oppressions does not centre on technology advancement; many people
have become impaired by modern technology (Sheldon, 2004), therefore, mainstream
technology is perceived as a cost-effective alternative to expensive, specialised equipment,
but this disregards the need for social change. Unfortunately, mainstream leisure facilities are
not adopting established technology which would improve inclusion rates for disabled
participants. Trailblazers (2009), for example, found cinemas do not provide adequate
facilities for wheelchair users.
It has become apparent that the provision of National Health Service equipment has had a
negative impact on those disabled people who prefer to use mainstream equipment or seek
private disability-specific devices (Harris, 1997). This has created a surge in organisations
that are dedicated to providing technology which improves disabled participation e.g. Possum
(2011) who provide advice and equipment to ensure disabled people, regardless of their
impairment, find accessible ways of pursuing their leisure interests.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Nevertheless, although technology has improved disabled people's opportunities for
participation, the increased dependency on technological devices create issues over reliability
and dependability (Roulstone, 1998). Furthermore, with the standardised adaption of
technology for particular environments there are questions over exploitation by a market all
too aware of its client’s dependency on its products. If disabled people are finding solutions
within technology, at what price do they have to pay to have equal participation?
Assistive technology may have improved independence, choice and control for many
disabled people, however in pursuit of leisure interests, personal assistance can be a key
factor. Data suggests that any one disabled individual may benefit from the assistance of up
to twenty-three professionals simultaneously (Brechin and Liddiard, 1981). With
multidisciplinary support, problems can develop with communication and continuity as the
individual attempts to access interests with the help of various members of a support package
(Wilding, 1982). In a report by Barnes (1990), these problems can arise for people using
disability resource centres, as the disabled person feels devoid of any responsibility and
heavily relies upon involvement from those considered ‘expert’. This inevitably leads to the
individual assuming a dependant role, which further negates mainstream inclusion.
Although a disabled person and a personal assistant should be aware of the boundaries
associated with providing support, the lack of empowering knowledge by leisure providers
causes misguided individuals to assume disabled people as passive observers of an activity
and the assistant as the instigator. This is apparent in (Murray, 2002) research where disabled
children attending social leisure activities felt extremely isolated as their personal assistant
acted as a conduit for communication. The importance of personal assistants has not been
ignored by the majority of mainstream leisure facilities; many organisations will provide
complimentary tickets to ensure that disabled people are not financially penalised for their
support needs (Trailblazers, 2009a).
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Transportation is integral for accessing leisure opportunities; however, the current transport
system is designed to benefit nondisabled commuters, with any implementations that permit
disabled people to use the service created through accident rather than intentional design
(Davis, 1990). According to research (Murray, 2002), disabled people relying on public
transport in rural areas are confronted with negative attitudes from service personal,
inaccessible modes of transport and routes which do not suit their needs. The consequence of
this can lead to disabled people aspiring to have a vehicle of their own, yet this desirable
option is usually negated by the financial implications of acquiring an accessible vehicle
(Office for National Statistics, 2010b).
The need to bypass multiple interchanges is commonplace for individuals who need to travel
long-distance on public transport; nevertheless, there is reluctance for disabled people to
pursue leisure activities which happen outside of their locality. The reasons for the averseness
are due to inconsistencies in design of vehicles and public carriages, poor station facilities
and insufficiently accessible information (Jolly, Priestley and Matthews, 2006). The lack of
travel confidence intensifies once disabled people are aware of possible changes to their
planned route, and the potential for encountering inaccessible transport stations in unknown
areas inhibits the motivation to pursue leisure interests (Jolly, Priestley and Matthews, 2006).
To minimise such fears, disabled people would need to plan their journeys with careful
consideration and appropriate contingencies; however, research indicates (Trailblazers,
2009b) this has led to the removal of spontaneous action, as disabled individuals have to
contact transport providers to ensure appropriate facilities are available, and provide 24-hour
notice for the intention to travel. With choice of travel firmly controlled by the transport
authorities, disabled people have to manage their leisure interests around the availability of
accessible transport, rather than their own intentions (Murray, 2002).
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
If all barriers were removed it would still not ensure inclusive choice for those wishing to
pursue leisure interests, as the final element of "access" (Davis, 1990) will liberate
individuals from physical barriers. Using a rights-based model of disability (Quinn and
Degener, 2002; Armstrong and Barton, 1999), the path to disability equality is protected
under legislation, including the Disability Discrimination Act, Disability Equality Duty and
the Equality Act 2010 (Equality and Human Rights Committee, 2011). Nevertheless, this
legislation does not go far enough in preventing the creation of barriers to disabled people this reserve is prevalent in the disability discrimination act, which states reasonable
adjustments must be made to accommodate disabled people" (Doyle, 2008). This statement
demonstrates a blasé approach to standardising the equal participation of disabled people.
This sentiment has been echoed elsewhere, most notably in research carried out by young
disabled people at the charity: Out and About (2007), who identified five key areas to
consider when creating an inclusive setting, including accessibility of the built environment.
Although legislation legally compels service providers to make reasonable adjustments to
ensure disabled people can participate (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011), it
appears businesses are too focused on the terminological definition of "reasonable
adjustments", rather than on the need to follow good practice or, indeed, the creation of the
inclusive environment itself. According to Prideaux (2006), service providers may be
unwilling to make adjustments, due to the additional financial burden incurred benefiting a
minority group, and the perception that such an outlay would be considered unreasonable.
For many mainstream leisure facilities, there is an implicit assumption that “access” refers to
the implementation of solutions which affect people with physical impairments (von Benzon,
2010). This causes people with learning difficulties, mental health conditions and individuals
with emotional and behavioural difficulties to be further marginalised and creates a hierarchy
of impairments, where the solutions for certain barriers are prioritised over the needs of
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
others (Murray, 2004). By failing to change the built environment, disabled people will be
unable access to pursue their interests on the basis of health and safety (Ward, Elliott and
Day, 2004), the social stigmatisation of otherness (Murray, 2002) and the reduced potential
for independence, imposed by parents and carers who perceive the disabled person as having
a lower capability to navigate through a society which excludes (Hart, 1978).
Before discussing social relationships, it is worthwhile discussing the role of disability
resource centres (day centre) and the emotional response from disabled people who use such
services. Kent (1984) perceived day centres as an opportunity to develop intellectual, social
and physical skills, which assisted the functionality of disabled people as members of a
community. Further analysis perceived day centres as treatment centres, intent on
rehabilitation (Barnes, 1990). However, the concept of using a resource centre to capacitybuild disabled people in order to successfully navigate community life is not necessarily a
leisure pursuit universally recognised by its users. According to Jahoda (1995) segregated
disability resource centres could be perceived as a "safe haven" for disabled people, as they
feel empowered within an environment that accommodate their needs, rather than the
marginalisation they face in a barrier-ridden society. Murray (2002) believes segregated
activities impact the acceptance of diversity amongst nondisabled people, and therefore slow
the progress of mainstream accommodation.
Having analysed the access to leisure facilities in accordance with the seven elements (Davis,
1990), social relationships, their creation and maintenance will be reviewed using a similar
analytical framework.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Establishing Relationships
Social relationships promote positive and negative behaviours between the individuals, which
manifest as both conflicting and socially supportive action (Duck, West and Acitelli, 1997).
Academic literature relating to disability and social relationships is populated with research,
which approaches the topic from the perspective of people with learning difficulties
(Chappell, 1994). Quantitative data recorded by the Office for National Statistics (2010b)
illustrated how disabled people's social contact was substantially less than peers without
impairments. Self-proclaimed reasons for this varied, however transport issues, barriers
arising from their impairment or disability and financial implications were more prominent
for disabled people, than for their nondisabled counterparts.
Davis's (1990) identification of the "seven needs" is a useful model in this context. The
importance of information can be paramount in understanding why disabled people have
reduced opportunities to construct relationships, and this thinking can be seen in the "thought
process" of various professionals involved in the provision of support for disabled people
(Goble, 2004). The social marginalisation of disabled people is borne from an historic
attitude that depicts disabled people as dependents of the state (Oliver, 1983). Whilst the
promotion of independent living has forced debate over disabled people's choice and control,
categorical definitions of the terms "dependence" and "independence" have not been fixed
because of diverse conceptions of disability (Finkelstein and Stuart, 1996). According to
Goble (2004), professionals promote a perception which considers the body and mind to be
defective and inhibits the potential to initiate independent thought or action.
For people with learning differences, the lack of support and information by which they may
enhance their level of independence significantly impacts their ability to construct social
relationships (Chapell, 1994). This is the evident in the ability to control financial resources,
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
as many services which supported people with learning difficulties, in segregated
environments, would not provide advice or skills-development in order to build confidence
(Atkinson, 1987). Issues like this continue to demonstrate the various barriers faced by
disabled people to gain choice and control over their lifestyle.
In addition to participation in leisure activity, emotional well-being is a determining factor in
the formation of relationships. Evidence suggests disabled people do not participate in social
relationships (Firth and Rapley’s, 1990), because of reduced life chances and impoverished
lives (Richardson and Richie, 1989). Difficulty in constructing relationships can result from a
perceived need to "normalise" society, which prescribes socially accepted values by which
communities must abide (Corbett, 1991). Cultural norms can produce a stigma for those who
do not conform to them and thereby ensure disabled people are identified as inferior and
undesirable options for friendship or romance; however, Race (1987) believes the association
with certain people and environments can also enhance the stigmatization of disabled people.
The impact of stereotypes and stigma upon disability and the formation of relationships are
particularly prevalent for disabled women (Gmelch, 1998). Firstly, societal expectations can
manifest into assumptions that disabled women are pathetic and feeble (Morris, 1991), and do
not conform to society's expectation of aesthetic beauty (Zitzelsberger, 2005). The
stereotypical view that disabled women are dependent and passive (Sheldon, 1999) and
therefore can only establish relationships with other people who have physical impairments
(Hanna and Rogovsky, 1991) raises the question whether integration with non-disabled
people improve the opportunities to develop social relationships?
According to Szivos (1992) disabled children's integration with nondisabled peers leads to
comparisons and ultimately damage to the self-esteem of the disabled individual upon
realisation that they are perceived as inferior. That research further illustrates the benefits of
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
disabled people preferring relationships with others in similar circumstances, as it allows for
a notion of security and empathetic understanding between individuals. Nevertheless,
disabled people will strive to demonstrate their ability to conform to society's expectations of
“normality” as a method through which to tackle nondisabled people's prejudice. This
manifests as a reluctance to form relationships with other disabled people (Morris, 1991).
This does not mean relationships amongst disabled people are recognized as erroneous. For
some, the option to communicate with others in similar circumstances can be beneficial, but
only if it has occurred through choice by the individuals, rather than being the only viable
option because of the organization of services (Chapell, 1994).
Specific housing requirements and the presence of family can also have an impact on how
disabled people construct relationships. The home can be a significant barrier, as authoritative
family members can be sceptical of disabled people's ability to establish honest and safe
relationships (Thompson and Emira, 2011); especially those which developed within the
family home. Even disabled people who live in segregated housing experience a lifestyle
wherein every action and decision is monitored by those perceived to supply care (Chapell,
1994). This leads to an invasion of privacy, potential humiliation and the breakdown of
personal relationships.
Personal accounts written by disabled people (Cobblepot, 1996) have articulately described
the pressure on individuals with impairments to minimize their romantic involvement with
nondisabled people. Sexual activity amongst disabled people is perceived as taboo
(Richardson, 1998), with lack of self-worth resulting in a lowered desire to seek romantic
relationships. The answer to this, according to Shuttleworth (2000), lies in the currently
limited access to dating, romance and sexual encounters. For this reason, many disabled
people seek the professional service of sex workers to experience connection and intimacy
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
(Weitzer, 2000). Yet, further friction arises between individual and family when such
experiences take place within the home environment (Sanders, 2007).
Returning focus to the "seven needs" (Davis, 1990), technology has helped to liberate
disabled people from stigma and oppression by allowing disabled people to create their own
persona when socialising within an online community (Loader, 1998). Technology can assist
with the fundamental need to communicate with others (Hodge, 2007), especially the
alternative communication aids used by people with specific impairments (Schlosser, 2003).
By using the Internet, the inequalities of daily living are negated and stigmatisation
eradicated as the self is defined in terms the individual chooses to use (Carr, 2004). This,
however, is not necessarily beneficial to the individual as research has shown that
dissociating oneself from their “real-world” identity creates a negative emotional impact
when the individual leaves the virtual world (Loader, 1998).
The cyber world provides an opportunity for disabled people to build relationships, whilst
simultaneously enhancing their skill with electronic devices. Inevitably, this builds
confidence in the user, which results in a continued use of these devices to seek various forms
of relationships, i.e. romantic, platonic, or empathetic (Loader, 1998). Nevertheless, as
Turkle (1995) highlights, electronic communities should not become the preferential channel
of communication for disabled people. If re-constructed to suit the needs of disabled people,
the online community will provide new ways of capacity-building, new methods by which
the individual can become politically active and new behaviours through which the individual
can establish a new identity or ‘body’ (Seymour and Lupton, 2004).
The involvement of personal assistants can also affect the establishment of relationships
(Yamaki and Yamazaki, 2004). The paternalistic view on disability, which depicts disabled
people as ‘consumers’ is coming under scrutiny as activists fights to have the disabled
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
community recognised as having choice and control over their support needs. At present,
disabled people are striving to establish themselves at the centre of their support package,
with personal assistance built round their needs (Gillik, Berkman and Cullen, 1999). The
report by Yamaki and Yamazaki (2004) illustrates the four characteristics a personal assistant
can represent: instrument, employee, companion and social asset.
These four identities are useful in understanding whether they hinder or promote relationship
formation; the ‘social asset’ characteristic is intriguing, as it progresses the relationship
between user and personal assistant past the functional duties of the individual’s needs
(Williams, Ponting and Ford, 2009). Moving beyond the realms of employer and employee,
the personal assistant can replace the need for social relations and friendship, and in some
circumstances become affectionately and romantically attached to the disabled person – or
vice versa (Piercy, 2000). This unnatural balance within a relationship can have negative
connotations, as identified by Marx (1999); whose research showed that the act of providing
assistance is based upon altruism and the understanding of equality issues. Nevertheless,
there are benefits to forming close relationships with personal assistants; perhaps key among
them is that disabled people can feel emotionally attached, and therefore integrated – which
can build confidence that can be used to establish personal relationships with others (Marquis
and Jackson, 2000).
Transport issues are vital for ensuring disabled people are included within their communities
(Davis, 1990). For many disabled people availability of transport is the determining factor
for attending social occasions (Taub, McLorg and Bartnick, 2009); without this system,
disabled people are left stranded within their home environment. This reinforces the concept
of “dependence”, as impairments are perceived as the cause of the immobility, which
ultimately leads to isolation (Gething,1997). For many disabled people, their overreliance on
family or personal assistants to transport them often means the opportunity to meet new
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
people is at the convenience of the transporter, rather than the individual (Murray, 2002). For
individuals who perceive themselves to be dependent (Barnes, 1990), their willingness to
seek new social relations will be hindered by the pressure to ask family for continual help in
transportation (Thompson and Emira, 2011).
Unfortunately, the lack of available alternatives remains problematic; where public transport
is inaccessible, the opportunity to use personally adapted vehicles comes with often
prohibitive costs (Carter and Peck, 2011). Whilst there is funding to provide suitable vehicles
for people with mobility impairments, problems with the economic stability in the United
Kingdom has raised the possibility that funding for such will be withdrawn for those in
residential care homes (Carter and Peck, 2011). Leading to increased isolation, and minimise
opportunities to seek new relationships. Nevertheless, without transport, the balance of a
relationship between acquaintances significantly; for non-disabled people the alternative to
abandoning a disabled friend is to continually visit them in their own home (Gething,1997),
which can lead to further pressure on the unnatural functioning of the relationship. For
disabled people who are unable to visit others with impairments, alternative communication
devices have to be sought (Turkle, 1995), which affect the development of the relationship.
The final issue is one of accessibility within the built environment. Research by Taub,
McLorg and Bartnick (2009) examined the impact of environmental barriers upon women
with physical impairments, demonstrating that wheelchair users, who were assigned
designated spaces during theatre performances, felt isolated and enjoyed fewer opportunities
to discuss their interests with new people. It is not uncommon for disabled people to
experience this type of “seating exclusion” as many stadia events adopt similar design
procedures (National Association of Disabled Supporters, 2011), though campaigners are
recognising the importance of promoting social inclusion by removing design barriers.
People with visual impairments in this study also recognised the inaccessible environment
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
affected their decision to socialise, as a lack of confidence in unsuitable or new dwellings
outweighed their motivation to attend social events.
Whilst there is an assumption that access to the built environment only affects people with
physical impairments (von Benzon, 2010), research has shown the negative effects of poor
access in mainstream environments on those with other conditions (Morina Diez, 2010). For
people with learning difficulties, attempts at inclusion in the social environment fail because
of rejection within the mainstream. The process of marginalisation results from design
procedures for accessing such environments, but for people with learning difficulties such
failures increase stigmatisation and, therefore, isolation.
Analysis of access to both leisure activities and social relationships is not complete without
presenting suggestions on how to improve the situation for disabled people.
Improving Opportunities
Lenney and Sercombe (2002) believe public education is vital for ensuring that negative
myths surrounding the formation of relationships with disabled people are quashed. By
recognising that non-disabled people consciously restrict their interaction with disabled
people, society can focus on deconstructing stereotypes through motivating people to
embrace diversity. This could be done by critically analysing and implementing Taylor and
Bogdan’s (1989) research which established three themed reasons for non-disabled people
befriending disabled people; firstly, religious reasons based on perceptions of suffering,
humanitarian reasons i.e. the altruistic provision of social interaction, or friendship
development through ‘personal tragedy model of disability’ (Oliver, 1993).
Morris (2001) considers the importance of empowerment and information for the
improvement of social relationships.
Placing disability equality within a human rights
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
agenda, disability advocacy groups could promote awareness of rights to disabled and nondisabled people, providing better support to tackle the inequalities which surface from
prejudice behaviour and discriminatory action. Continuing with information, Taub, McLorg
and Bartnick (2009) recommend how mainstream institutions, including universities and
public sector organisations, should promote disabling barriers of unequal access and promote
good practice in their facilities.
At present, information about leisure opportunities is spread through word of mouth (Murray,
2002); therefore it is vital for local authorities to produce accessible information for a diverse
range of impairments. Nevertheless, Murray (2002) also advocates of allowing disabled
young people access to free taster sessions, whereby individuals can assess the facilities of a
leisure attraction to identify whether their needs will be met.
According to Thompson and Emira (2011) a multi-disciplinary approach for the improvement
of access to leisure facilities is preferable, wherein, by acknowledging the importance of
leisure activities, services and agencies can share resources to benefit the individual’s
opportunity to attend leisure initiatives and social events. By providing social and health
support, as well as the accessible transportation, disabled people have greater choice and
control over their lifestyle (Murray, 2002).
Conclusion
Leisure activities are now recognised as essential part of an individual’s “lifestyle”
(Gershuny, 1986). The definition of “leisure” remains problematic and various scholars have
expressed differing opinions (Gershuny and Fisher, 1999; Bourdieu, 1987; Young and
Willmott, 1973), but for the purpose of this paper, leisure activities were defined as
occurrences which had no obligations and happened within a period of ‘free time’ (National
Centre for Social Research, 2010).
In the United Kingdom, watching television and
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
socialising with friends and family constituted the two most popular leisure activities for men
and women (Office for National Statistics, 2010).
In relation to disability, the leisure industry needs to take responsibility for ensuring disabled
people have full participation within mainstream and, if they choose to use it, segregated
leisure facilities (United Nations, 2006).
Previously, Davis (1990) established seven
principles or “needs” which identified social structure discrimination against disabled people:
information, counselling, housing, technical aids, personal assistance, transport and access.
By using Davis’ principles as an analytical frame, disabled people’s opportunities to access
leisure activities and construction of new social relationships were examined.
With regards to access to leisure and the establishment of social relationships, organisations
need to adopt and promote inclusion (Murray, 2002), since, for many disabled people
concepts of “participation” and “independence” are meaningless because of the lack of
awareness or empowerment. The emotional response to participation is fundamental. As
Fullagar and Owler (1998) observed, disabled people’s fear of rejection overrides their desire
to pursue leisure interests. Lack of empathetic understanding, ignorance of disability issues
and general prejudice towards disabled people on the part of leisure staff creates a situation in
which disabled people assume an inferior position compared to their nondisabled
counterparts (Thompson and Emira, 2011; Tregaskis, 2003; Booth and Booth, 1996).
Even within the home, disabled people experience barriers to access leisure interests; often
individuals will limit their activities because of external involvement from parental figures
(Connor, 1997). Invasion of privacy can destroy relationships, as pressure to minimise
romantic or strong relationships lies in the limited experience of social relations
(Shuttleworth, 2000). Yet, the inaccessible nature of some activities means people with
certain impairments cannot participate, and whilst advanced technology can provide
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
alternative means of inclusion, the reliance on technology diverts attention away from the
need for social change (Sheldon, 2004). Using online communities to develop relationships,
disabled people can disassociate themselves from the barriers of everyday life in order to
construct an image of their self through descriptive language, which reflects the manner in
which they wish to be perceived.
In order to eradicate these barriers, and others identified within this paper, three issues need
to be reviewed. Firstly, public education is needed to dispel stereotypes about disabled
people (Lenney and Sercombe, 2002); secondly, leisure facilities and public sector
organisations need to promote and empower disabled people (Morris, 2001), to promote
awareness of good practice and inclusive design, and to ensure they create social change
should they wish to pursue such activity. Finally, person-centred support is needed for
disabled people, to ensure they have complete choice and control in order to access
mainstream or segregated activities (Murray, 2002).
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
References
Abbott, S. and McConkey., 2006. The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by people
with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 10(3), pp. 275-287.
Aitchison, C., 2000. Disability and Social Inclusion: Leisure, Sport and Culture in the Lives
of Young Disabled People. Cheltenham and Gloucester: College of Higher Education.
Aleman, A.M. and Wartman, K.L., 2009. Online social networking on campus:
understanding what matters in student culture. New York: Routledge.
Appleby, Y., 1993. Out in the margins. Disability and Society, 4(1), pp. 19-32.
Armstrong, F., and Barton, L., 1999. Disability, Human Rights and Education: Cross-cultural
perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Atkinson, D., 1987. How easy is it to form friendships. Social Work Today, pp.12-13.
Barnes, C., 1990. Cabbage Syndrome: The Social Construction of Dependence. Lewes:
Falmer.
Booth, T. and Booth, W., 1996. Sounds of silence: narrative research with inarticulate
subjects. Disability and Society, 11(7), pp. 55-69.
Bourdieu, P., 1987. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated from
French by Richard Nice. Harvard: University Press.
Bramham, P. and Wagg, S., 2009. Sport, leisure and culture in the postmodern city. Surrey:
Ashgate.
Brechin, A. and Liddiard, P., 1981. Look at it This Way. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Carr, L., 2004. Leisure and disabled people. In: J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, C. Thomas
ed. 2004. Disabling barriers, enabling environments. London: SAGE. Ch.27.
Carter, P. and Peck, S., 2011. The unkindest cut…Homing in on res care, Disability Now,
[Online]. Available at: < http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/the-unkindest-cuthoming-in-on-res-care> [Accessed 9 March 2011].
Chappell, A.L., 1994. ‘A Question of Friendship: Community Care and the Relationships of
People with Learning Difficulties’. Disability and Society, 9(4), pp. 419-434.
Cobblepot, O., 1996. Keeping it in the Family, Coalition, [Online].
Available at: <
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/cobblepot/keeping%20it%20in%20the%20family.pdf>
[Accessed
11
February 2011].
Connor, M. J., 1997. Parental motivation for specialist or mainstream placement. Support for
Learning, 12(3), pp. 104-110.
Corbett, J., 1991. So, who wants to be normal? Disability, Handicap and Society, 6(3), 259260.
Davis, K., 1990. The Emergence of the “Seven Needs”. [Paper] February 1990. Derbyshire
Coalition of Disabled People.
Department for Transport., 2010. Transport Statistics for Great Britain (TSGB 36 Edition)
[Online]. Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/>.
[Accessed 10 February 2011].
Derbyshire County Council., 1986. The Disability Project and the Seven Needs. [Report].
Derbyshire County Council Social Services Department.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Devas, M., 2003. Support and access in sports and leisure provision. Disability and Society,
18(2), pp. 231-245.
Dewsbury, G. et al., 2002. Designing acceptable ‘smart’ home technology to support people
in the home. Technology and Disability, 14, pp. 1-9.
Doyle, B.J., 2008. Disability Discrimination: Law and Practice. Bristol: Jordans.
Duck, S. West, L. and Acitelli, L., 1997. Sewing the Field: the tapestry of relationships in life
and research. In: S. Duck, ed. 1997. Handbook of Personal relationships: theory, research
and interventions. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Equality and Human Rights Committee., 2011. The law about disability discrimination.
[Online]. Available at: < http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/yourrights/disability/the-law-about-disability-discrimination/>. [Accessed 23 February 2011].
Equality and Human Rights Committee., 2011.Disability Equality. [online] Available at:
<http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/vision-and-misson/our-businessplan/disability-equality/> [Accessed 12 February 2011].
Fine, M. and Glendinning, C., 2005. Dependence, independence or inter-dependence? Revisiting the concepts of ‘care’ and ‘dependency’, Ageing and Society, 25(4), pp. 601-621.
Finkelstein, V. and Stuart, O., 1996. ‘Developing new services’. In G. Hales, ed. 1996.
Beyond Disability: towards an Enabling Society. London: SAGE.
Firth, H. and Rapley, M., 1990. From Acquaintance to Friendship: issues for people with
learning disabilities. Kiderminster: British Institute of Mental Handicap.
Fullagar, S. and Owler, K., 1998. ‘Narratives of Leisure: Recreating the self.’ Disability and
Society, 13(3), pp. 441-450.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Gershuny, J.I. and Fisher, K., 1999. Leisure in the UK across the 20th Century. In: A.H.
Halsey, ed. 1999. British Social Trends: the Twentieth Century. London: Macmillian
Publishers Ltd.
Gershuny, J.I., 1986. Leisure: Feast or Famine. Society and Leisure, 9(2), pp. 431454.Hawrylyshn, O., 1978. Estimating the Value of Household Work in Canada. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada.
Gething, L., 1997. Sources of Double Disadvantage for People with Disabilities Living in
Remote and Rural Areas of New South Wales, Australia. Disability and Society, 12(4), pp.
513-531.
Gillick, M. Berkman, S. and Cullen, L., 1999. A patient-centred approach to advance medical
planning in the nursing home. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47(2), pp. 227230.
Gmelch, S.B., 1998. Gender on campus: Issues for college women. New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press.
Goble, C., 2004. Dependence, independence and normality. In: J. Swain, S. French, C.
Barnes, C. Thomas, ed. 2004. Disabling barriers, enabling environments. London: SAGE.
Ch. 6.
Hanna, W.J. and Rogovsky, B., 1991. Women with disabilities: Two handicaps plus.
Disability, Handicap and Society, 6, pp. 49-63.
Harris, J., 1997. Deafness and the hearing. Birmingham: Venture Press.
Harris, J., 2010. The use, role and application of advanced technology in the lives of disabled
people in the UK. Disability and Society, 25(4), pp. 427-439.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Hart, R., 1978. Children’s exploration of tomorrow’s environments. Ekistics, 57, pp. 387-90.
Hillstrom, L.C., 2010. Online Social Networks (Technology 360). San Diego: Lucent Books.
Hirsch, F., 1977. Social Limits to Growth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hodge, S., 2007. Why is the potential of augmentative and alternative communication not
being realised? Exploring the experiences of people who use communication aids. Disability
and Society, 22(5), pp. 457-471.
Hodson, S., 2010. Skype Commands 13 Percent of International Phone Calls. The Inquisitr,
[Online] 3 May 2010. Available at: <http://www.inquisitr.com/71802/skype-commands-13percent-of-international-calls/>. [Accessed 3 February 2011].
Jahoda, A., 1995. ‘Activities of People with Moderate to Severe Learning Difficulties: living
with purpose or just killing time?’ Disability and Society, 10(2), pp. 203-220.
Jolly, D. Priestley, M and Matthewsm B., 2006. Secondary analysis of existing data on
disabled people’s use and experiences of public transport in Great Britain. [Online]
Disability Rights Commission.
Available at: < http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
studies/archiveuk/jolly/DRC%20transport%20research%20report%20%20August%202006%20final.pdf>. [Accessed 3 March 2011].
Jones, S.G., 1986. Workers at Play: A Social and Economic History of Leisure 1918-1939.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kelley, H.H., 1983. Close relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Kent, A., 1984. Day Centres For Young Disabled People. London: RADAR
King, G. Petrenchik, T. Law, M. and Hurley, P., 2009. The enjoyment of formal and informal
recreation and leisure activities: A comparison of school-aged children with and without
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
physical disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 56(2),
pp. 109-130.
Lenney, M. and Sercombe, H., 2002. “Did You See That Guy in the Wheelchair Down the
Pub?” Interactions across Difference in a Public Place. Disability and Society, 17(1), pp. 518.
Levinger, G., 1983. Development and change. In: H.H Kelley, ed. 1983. Close relationships.
New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 315-359.
Loader, B., 1998. Cyberspace divide: equality, agency and policy in the information society.
London: Routledge.
Marquis, R. and Jackson, R., 2000. Quality of life and quality of service relationships:
experiences of people with disabilities. Disability and Society, 15(3), pp. 411-425.
Marx, J.D., 1999. Motivational characteristics associated with health and human service
volunteers. Administration in Social Work, 23(1), pp. 51-66.
Morina Diez, A., 2010. School memories of young people with disabilities: an analysis of
barriers and aids to inclusion. Disability and Society, 25(2), pp. 163-175.
Morris, J., 1991. Pride against prejudice: Transforming attitudes to disability. London: The
Women’s Press.
Murray, P. and Penman, J. eds., 2000. Telling Our Own Stories – Reflections on Family Life
in a Disabling World. Sheffield: Parents with Attitude.
Murray, P., 2002. Hello! Are you listening? Disabled teenagers’ experience of access to
inclusive leisure. York: York Publishing Services.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Murray, P., 2004. Making connections: developing inclusive leisure in policy and practice.
York: Joesph Rowntree Foundation.
National Association of Disabled Supporters., 2011. Level Playing Field 2011: A Simple
Formula
–
Good
Access
=
Good
Business.
[Online]
Available
at:
<http://www.levelplayingfield.org.uk/Level-Playing-Field.aspx> [Accessed 9 March 2011].
National Centre for Social Research., 2010. British Social Attitudes. (26th Report) [Online]
SAGE (Published 2011). Available at: <http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/british-socialattitudes-26th-report>. [Accessed 10 February 2011].
Office for National Statistics., 2010a. Social Trends. (ONS 40 Edition) [Online] Basingstoke:
Palgrave
Macmillan.
Available
at:
<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/SocialTrends40/ST40_2010_FINAL.pdf>. [Accessed 12 February 2011].
Office for National Statistics., 2010b. Life Opportunities Survey. (Interim Results 2009/10)
[Online]
Surrey:
Office
of
Public
Sector
Information.
Available
at:
<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/life-opp-survey.asp>. [Accessed
12 March 2011].
Oliver, M., 1983. Social Work with Disabled People. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Out and About., 2007. Are we nearly there yet? How included are disabled young people in
leisure
activities
in
Suffolk?
[Online].
Available
at:
<
http://www.oaa.co.uk/Resources/Out%20and%20About/Documents/SUMMARY%20PRESE
NTATION%20FOR%20A5%20BOOKLET.pdf>. [Accessed 28 February 2011].
Parker, S. 1976., The Sociology of Leisure. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Petrie, P. Egharevba, I. Oliver, C. and Poland, G., 2000. Out of School Lives, Out of School
Services. London: The Stationery Office.
Piercy, K.W., 2000. When it is more than a job: close relationships between home and health
aides and older clients. Journal of Aging and Health, 12(3), pp. 362-387.
Possum., 2011. What is Electronic Assistive Technology? [Online]. Available at:
<http://www.possum.co.uk/eat>. [Accessed 2 March 2011].
Powers, W., 2010. Hamlet’s Blackberry: a practical philosophy for building a good life in the
digital age. New York: Harper.
Prideaux, S., 2006. Good Practice for Providing Reasonable Access to the Physical Built
Environment
for
Disabled
People.
[Online].
Available
at:
<
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/prideaux/prideaux%20S.%202006.pdf>.
[Accessed 4 February 2011].
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit., 2005. Improving Life Chances for Disabled People. [online]
Available
at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assests/disability.pdf
[Accessed 12 February 2011].
Quinn, G., and Degener, T., ed., 2002. Human rights and disability: The current use and
future potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of disability.
Geneva: United Nations.
Race, D., 1987. Normalisation: theory and practice. In: N. Malin, ed. 1987. Reassessing
Community Care: with particular reference to provision for people with mental handicap and
mental illness. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
pRichardson, A. and Ritchie, J., 1989. Developing Friendships: enabling people with
learning difficulties to make and maintain friends. London: Policy Studies Institute.
Richardson, D., 1998. Sexuality and citizenship. Sociology, 32, pp. 83-100.
Roulstone, A., 1998. Enabling technology: Disabled people, work and new technology.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Sanders, T., 2007. ‘The politics of sexual citizenship: commercial sex and disability’.
Disability and Society, 22(5), pp. 439-455.
Schlosser, R.W., 2003. Roles of speech output in augmentative and alternative
communication: narrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, pp. 527.
Seymour, W. and Lupton, D., 2004. Holding the line online: exploring wired relationships for
people with disabilities. Disability and Society, 19(4), pp. 291-305.
Sheldon, A., 1999. Personal and perplexing: Feminist disability politics evaluated. Disability
and Society, 14, pp. 643-657.
Sheldon, A., 2004. Changing Technology. In: J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, C. Thomas, ed.
2004. Disabling barriers, enabling environments. London: SAGE. Ch. 23.
Shuttleworth, R.P., 2000. The search for sexual intimacy for men with cerebral palsy.
Sexuality and Disability, 18(4), pp. 263-282.
Szivos, S., 1992. “The Limits to Integration?”. In: H. Brown and H. Smith, ed.
Normalisation: A Reader for the Nineties. London: Routledge. pp.112-134.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
Taub, D.E. McLorg, P.A. and Bartnick, A.P., 2009. Physical and social barriers to social
relationships: voices of rural disabled women in the USA. Disability and Society, 24(2), pp.
201-215.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R., 1989. On accepting relationships between people with mental
retardation and non-disabled people: towards an understanding of acceptance. Disability,
Handicap and Society, 4, pp. 21-36.
Thompson, D. and Emira, M., 2011. ‘They say every child matters, but they don’t”: an
investigation into parental and carer perceptions of access to leisure facilities and respite care
for children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Attention Deficit,
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Disability and Society, 26(1), pp. 65-78.
Tracey, T.J.G., 2004. Levels of Interpersonal Complementarity: A Simplex Representation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), pp. 1211-1225.
Trailblazers., 2009a. The Trailblazers’ Leisure Report (Report 3 of Inclusion Now) [Online].
Available
at:
<http://www.mdctrailblazers.org/assets/0000/2994/Trailblazers_calling_time_final_copy.pdf
>. [Accessed 23 February 2011]
Trailblazers., 2009b. The Trailblazers’ Transport Report (Report 1 of Inclusion Now)
[Online].
Available
at:
<
http://www.mdctrailblazers.org/assets/0000/1411/_End_of_the_line__Report_FINAL.pdf>.
[Accessed 23 February 2011].
Tregaskis, C., 2003. Towards inclusive practice: An insider perspective on leisure provision
for disabled people. Managing Leisure, 8, pp. 28-40.
Turkle, S., 1995. Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet. London: Phoenix.
Miro Griffiths
Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships
February 2011
United Nations., 2006. UN Enable – Promoting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
[online] Available at: <http://www.un.org/disabilities> [Accessed 1 December 2010].
von Benzon, N., 2010. ‘Moving on from ramps? The utility of the social model of disability
for facilitating experiences of nature for disabled children’. Disability and Society, 25(5), pp.
617-626.
Ward, F. Elliot, C. and Day, C., 2004. I Want to Play Too. London: Barnardos.
Weitzer, R., 2000. Sex for sale. London: Routledge.
Wilding, P., 1982. Professional Power and Social Welfare. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Williams, V. Ponting, L. and Ford, K., 2009. ‘I do like the subtle touch’: interactions between
people with learning difficulties and their personal assistants. Disability and Society, 24(7),
pp. 815-828.
Wright, P.H., 1984. ‘Self referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of friendship’. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, (1), pp. 115-130.
Yamaki, C. and Yamazaki, Y., 2004. Instruments, employees, companions, social assets:
understanding relationships between persons with disabilities and their assistants in Japan.
Disability and Society, 19(1), pp. 31-46.
Young, M. and Willmott, P., 1973. The Symmetrical Family. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Zitzelsberger, H., 2005. (In)visibility: Accounts of embodiment of women with physical
disabilities and differences. Disability and Society, 20, pp. 389-403.