Open Research Online
Open Research Online
Open Research Online
c 2014 TACTYC
Version: Accepted Manuscript
Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/09575146.2013.878317
Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other
copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please
consult the policies page.
oro.open.ac.uk
Open Research Online
The Open University’s repository of research publications
and other research outputs
c 2014 TACTYC
Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copy-
right owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult
the policies page.
oro.open.ac.uk
Early Years: An International Research Journal
Faculty of Education and Language Studies, The Open University, United Kingdom.
Correspondence Details:
John Parry
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
UK
E-mail: john.parry@open.ac.uk
1
Making connections and making friends: social interactions between
two children labelled with special educational needs and their peers in a
nursery setting.
Faculty of Education and Language Studies, The Open University, United Kingdom.
This paper reports on a pilot study of the social interactions between two children
labelled with special educational needs and their peers in an early years setting.
Data from play observations and staff interviews is used to examine the dynamics
of friendship groups that the two children have developed and the way that they
attempt to make new connections with other children. Comparisons between the
two children’s interactions with their recurrent playmates and less familiar peers
are drawn and the significance of their agency in making decisions about
developing relationships is highlighted. A theme that also emerges is that staff
facilitating rather than directing interactions between the two children and their
peers has the most positive impact. Areas for further investigation are suggested
including the range of relationships that children identified with special
educational needs establish with their peers and the nature of adult support that
most effectively supports friendships between all children.
Corresponding author. Email: john.parry@open.ac.uk
2
Introduction
From an early age most children are seen to engage in complex social interactions
understanding of how to interact and relate to other people (Lillivist 2010). The nursery
or playgroup not only presents opportunities for young children to build their social
competencies, it also provides a context for the emergence of friendships between peers
(Dunn 1993). For some children these friendships can remain stable and resilient
(Lindsey 2002) whilst for others such relationships can become a ‘highly colourful,
elusive and unpredictable phenomena’ (Deegan 1996, 5). For those children finding
friendships more elusive, the prospect of ‘having no friends’ may have a negative impact
on their well being and their capacity to respond positively to social situations (Engle,
This paper reports on the peer relationships of two children labelled with special
educational needs (SEN) within the social dynamic of their inclusive nursery setting. A
relationships amongst all those who attend (Guralnick 1999; Guralnick et al. 2007).
Significantly parents of disabled children and those labelled with SEN often view the
labelled peers as a priority (Hollingsworth and Buysse 2009). However despite the
importance attached to friendships for this group of children, much research in this area
has tended to focus on the incidence of such relationships rather than the nature of their
development (Webster and Carter 2007). Guralnick and his colleagues, in a series of
socio-metric research studies, found that young children they categorised with ‘mild
3
developmental delay’ or ‘communication disorders’ were both less successful at engaging
other children and less likely to form reciprocal friendships in their pre-schools than their
peers (Guralnick et al. 1996; Guralnick et al. 2007). Other studies have identified
rejection as a play partner as being common (Diamond, Le Furgy and Blass 1993;
Skinner, Buysse and Bailey 2004; Odom et al. 2006) and have drawn a connection
child’s perceived developmental difficulties or deficits (de Groot Kim 2010). Meyer
(2001) identified four interconnected variables that shape the social relationships between
children in inclusive settings: the child’s repertoire; the social environment; the nature of
adult support; and peer skills and expectations. Dyson (2005), Laws and Kelly (2005) and
Diamond and Hong (2010) also highlighted that general attitudes to disability as well as
intentions to make friends with disabled peers in their pre-school settings. Similarly
Dietrich (2005) found that parental attitude to friendships between disabled children and
their peers was a key factor in establishing early relationships together with the joint play
The intention of this qualitative study was to take the social model of disability as
4
special educational needs onto the broader culture within a setting and its impact on
children’s experiences (Oliver 1996; Swain, French, and Cameron 2003). Corsaro (2005)
emphasised that children themselves, through their interpretations of the adult world,
including those labelled with SEN, need to be recognised as active decision takers, choice
makers and interpreters (Nind, Flewitt and Payler 2010), who operate within their setting
social cultures, research with older children in inclusive secondary schools has
highlighted the significance of the disabled child’s own individual decisions and actions
in influencing their relationships with classmates (Bentley 2008; Naraian 2008, 2011;
setting, this research aimed to examine how social connections and friendships between
two children labelled with SEN and their peers developed. The influence that these two
children’s own choices and preferences had on their emerging relationships and their
response to adult’s supporting their interplay with other children were of particular
Methodology
The research used a case study approach in a combined children’s centre and
diverse local community with 30% of the children speaking English as an additional
language. In addition 15% of the children attending were identified with SEN. The
5
setting had substantial outdoor play areas that all the children from different rooms could
Ethical clearance for the project was obtained from the Human Research Ethics
Committee at the researcher’s university. This followed scrutiny of the protocols for
seeking ongoing consent from parents (on behalf of their children) and staff to participate
in the study. Four families agreed for their children to take part and from this group two
were chosen on the basis of their attendance pattern, one attending five mornings and the
other five afternoon sessions. These children were referred to as the ‘lead’ children in the
research rather than the ‘target’ or ‘focus’ children, in recognition of their position as
participants rather than subjects of the research. Both lead children were boys and had
been attending the nursery for at least two terms. Ray was a four year-old living in the
locality with his parents, two younger brothers and older sister. His family was of mixed
race heritage with English being the main language spoken at home. Ray received
clinical syndrome, he communicated with a mixture of gesture and short spoken phrases.
When he had started at the nursery he had used Makaton sign language to assist his
communication. Isaac was three and a half years old with the nursery being his first
through the Portage Service1 and he was also involved with the community paediatric
team. His family was of Black African heritage and he was an only child. He expressed
6
himself in two or three word phrases and understood the communication from others best
The two children had been identified by the nursery as being at ‘Early Action
Plus’ within the SEN Code of Practice2 (DfES 2001) and both received support from the
speech therapy service whilst at nursery in small group sessions away from their main
room base. Ray was also supported by a language programme which involved individual
sessions with a staff member and the use of specific visual resources. Ray was due to
move to the reception class in a local inclusive primary school the following term but
The research methodology drew from the ‘In the Picture’ approach developed by
Paige-Smith and Rix (2011) in their study of home-based early intervention programmes
for pre-school children with SEN. Acknowledging the influence of the ‘Mosaic
Approach’ (Clark 2004) and the ‘listening to children’ paradigm, ‘In the Picture’ aimed
to forefront the child’s story ‘and include a narrative that would assist in the
understanding of the child’s experienced world’ (Matthews and Rix 2013, 242). Its
potential to involve very young children with SEN as research participants also made it
an appropriate reference point for this project. The key components used were: recording
to make a visual record of the observed interactions; and sharing the visual record with
the child and other people involved at the end of the observation session.
7
Direct observation of the lead children was chosen as the main method of data
collection because it ‘…provides insights that cannot be gleaned in other ways’ (Nind,
Flewitt, and Payler 2010, 668). A series of eight observations periods in the nursery took
place over a week consisting of four sessions lasting two hours with each child. Within
the nursery routine these sessions were designated times when the children engaged in
free play either inside or outside. The observation strategy was to describe any interaction
involving the lead child and at least one peer. The observations were recorded on a small
hand-held Dictaphone with the researcher describing the social exchange as it happened.
Consequently if the lead child was involved in solitary play the researcher would be
watching but not recording any description of the child’s activity unless another peer
joined in. If an adult was present or joined the interaction the recorded observation was
still made as long as lead child was in the company of at least one other peer.
Because of the nature of the observations it was recognised that the researcher
was potentially entering the private areas of children’s activity and encroaching on spaces
preserved for their individual and collective withdrawal (Skanfors, Lofdhal and Haggland
2009; Corson and Colwell 2012). This raised ethical issues around permission to observe,
the power dynamic between the researcher and the researched (Hill 2005; Robinson and
Kellett 2005) and the responsibility for children’s well being (Birbeck and Drummond
2005; Langston et al. 2005). It was therefore important that transparent protocols were
agreed with the staff and the lead children’s parents clarifying the researcher’s
commitment to: intervene if any child was in danger; refer disagreements between
children to familiar staff; alert staff to any child in distress; and withdraw if any child was
8
becoming unsettled by the observation. It was possible that such commitments could
limit the scope of the field-work but inaction by the researcher in such circumstances
would have been seen by the children as unusual and subsequently undermined the
describing the social interactions that the lead child engaged in. The following example is
a transcript of a first person narrative description for one lead children recorded by the
I pull up on the plank - other children are coming across the plank that is between
two climbing frame ladders. I watch the other children walk across then I walk down
to where they are going across. I find a lower plank that I can get on and pull myself
up onto it. A boy behind me waits and I crawl across the plank to the next climbing
frame.
(Recorded observation of Ray)
It is important to stress that by using the first person narrative it was not assumed that the
data would reflect ‘the child’s truth’ more closely (Paige-Smith and Rix 2011, 30). All
observations inevitably contain an element of personal interpretation but by using the first
person narrative the aim was to help the observer be more precise about what the lead
children did during interactions with their peers and the choices that they made. Detailed
Flewitt, and Payler 2010; Dickens 2011) and so using the first person narrative to provide
9
focus represented an attempt by the researcher to be a more effective and attentive
listener.
taken by the researcher to capture social exchanges involving the lead children. Time was
then taken at the end of each observation session to share these photographs with the lead
children in a quiet area of their nursery room using a small digital picture screen. These
‘sharing’ sessions were facilitated by a practitioner who knew the child well whilst the
researcher acted as an observer noting the child’s reaction to the photographs and audio-
approach to enable children to participate in research by giving their own views on the
phenomenon being investigated (Smith, Duncan and Marshall 2005; Stephenson 2009).
The sessions here were important for this reason and also because they gave the lead
children the opportunity to make connections between the researcher’s presence in their
environment and the purpose of the observations. From the researcher’s perspective the
activity was a further reminder that when investigating any aspect of children’s
experiences ‘the most important starting point is that all children and young people-
At the end of the week three staff members from Ray’s group and four from
Isaac’s were interviewed about their perception of the lead children’s friendships and
peer connections in nursery. This sample represented all the staff that regularly supported
10
the children including the teacher in charge and the member of staff who had facilitated
the photograph sharing sessions. The interviews were semi-structured with each
interview covering the same themes but with the option to deviate from a set question
order. The photographs taken of the children’s interactions were not used as a focus for
discussion in these adult interviews unlike in the original ‘In the Picture’ approach
(Paige-Smith and Rix 2011). In the context of this small short term study it was felt that
the staff’s general views on the lead child’s social connections provided clearer data
The data from the observations, photograph sharing sessions and staff interviews
were subjected to a thematic analysis derived from grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss,
2008). Initially ‘open’ descriptive codes were used to break down and organise the data
according to the content which defined the interaction for example: play solely with
recurrent partners; interaction with recurrent partners with other children joining in;
interaction by lead child with others; and attempted interaction by another child. Further
analysis of these broad categories identified connected common subthemes across the
range of the lead children’s encounters with peers. These included: being persistent;
seeking help and engagement; initiating and controlling exchanges; sharing and not
sharing; and the adult initiating, facilitating and intervening. The findings are presented
as a collective case study and reported under subsections drawn from the data analysis
themes, summarising the key characteristics of the lead children’s social connections. As
a small scale pilot study the research makes no attempt to generalize findings to different
11
contexts although it may ‘provide a lens someone else can use to look at friendships
Recurrent playmates
From the observations and the photographs taken during the sessions it appeared
that there were certain peers that Ray and Isaac played with more frequently. Ray
recurrently engaged with Hayley and Ely, individually; as a partner or, often, within a
threesome and the staff confirmed that the three children would ‘gravitate to each other
almost instinctively…’ (staff interview). It was also noticeable that when other children
joined in play with this group of three Ray kept his focus on interacting with Ely or
Hayley rather than any other peers. His own comments on the photographs taken of his
these two peers first when viewing the pictures. In the interviews staff identified that
Isaac played with two children more regularly, Saul and Lisa and it was apparent from
the observations that he engaged with these two peers for the longest sequences of play.
Like Ray, Isaac also named these two children most frequently when the photographs
The staff suggested several reasons for Ray and Isaac having these particular
relationships. They felt that Isaac’s play with Saul stemmed from being in the same small
story group as well as having similar ‘levels of understanding’ and a shared disposition
for ‘doing things as opposed to standing and having a conversation’ (staff interview).
Staff traced his connection with Lisa back to the time when he started nursery and she
12
was amongst a group of girls who had been keen to ‘baby’ him. Staff had intervened to
resolve the situation and since this time Isaac and Lisa had maintained a more balanced
relationship revolving around each other’s energetic approach to play. Several staff also
assumed that the development of Ray’s relationship with Ely and Hayley was based on
the children having ‘the same sort of needs’ in terms of their ‘levels of communication’
(staff interview). However they also felt that compatibility of personality, age,
seeking help and accepting assistance from their familiar playmates. When Isaac played
with Lisa on the climbing frame he would consistently seek her support by holding out
his hands or reaching up to her. It was noticeable that she was the only child from whom
he sought such assistance at this activity. Similarly, of all the children in Ray’s group Ely
I say “where Ely” and “help, help” as I cannot get my bike up the hill. I try to pull
my bike up the hill calling for Ely. (Recorded observation of Ray)
Ray and Isaac were also observed regularly in pursuit of their respective familiar
Ely has Hayley and is holding her hand and I am following them with the pram.
(Recorded observation of Ray)
13
Saul runs away and goes onto the crates- I follow him-go up onto the crates with
him-I am climbing over the crates and say ‘hi, hi’. (Recorded observation of Isaac)
the lead and controlling activities. For example in one prolonged exchange with Hayley
at the craft table Ray dictated which items she could put in a pile that she was making by
holding onto the main box of materials and giving objects to her individually. Similarly
Isaac was observed with Lisa being both persistent in trying to engage his friend but also
Lisa is jumping around on the carpet area and trying to pull a net down. I am just
looking at the books - the boy who just joined us is naming the pictures for me and I
am talking as well. I am still looking at books - Lisa is pulling on the curtains….
(Recorded observation of Isaac).
It also seemed from the observations that both lead children had worked out
particular strategies for successfully engaging with their regular playmates. For example
Ray would often: put toys on Ely’s head; add pieces to Ely’s construction activity; or
point to pictures that Ely was looking at. Isaac was noted on several occasions growling
or copying a vocal sound that Saul was making in order to gain his attention. It was
noticeable that neither Ray or Isaac were observed using similar ways of starting
dependent on being around their established playmates. Ray’s teacher noted that ‘he will
14
move away and do his own thing and so he is independent in that sense’ and the staff
from Isaac’s room all reflected on his increasing attempts to play alongside other
children.
stand or sit next to peers; and deliberately moving toys towards them. The following
A boy comes into the area- he has a car I am still sat at the table. I look at him and
bring my dolphin towards him towards the car on the floor- I am watching him push
the car and I am pushing the dolphin around the floor as well-I put my dolphin back
up onto the table and he pushes his car… (Recorded observation of Ray)
He also consistently greeted two particular children by name as they entered the room
consistently named these children when reviewing the photographs from the sessions.
Observations suggested that Isaac also gravitated towards activities where groups
of other children were playing. In every observed session he made at least two visits to
the snack area where children would congregate and would attempt interactions by
pushing his bowl towards others or copying their actions. The lead teacher in the room
suggested that, although the area was a safe haven from more boisterous activities in the
nursery, he went to this area to be part of a social group. When joining other activities
Isaac appeared willing to take risks, attempting to make in-roads by taking away toys
from others and initiating a chase. One of the members of staff noted that he was also
particularly confident in approaching children who were new to the nursery. This was
15
evident during an observation session when he repeatedly brought toys to a girl who was
away when they approached him, he was now more tolerant of them playing alongside. In
the observations Ray often responded to peers that asked to play with him or share his toy
with ‘No no’, ‘go away’ or ‘mine’. However this initial reaction could form the platform
A girl comes - looks at my tower- goes to put a brick on my tower and I move it
away- she holds out a brick and I take it. My tower falls down and splits in two- the
girl takes one half and I take the other- I keep building up my tower- she laughs and
goes to put a brick on top for me. (Recorded observation of Ray)
This example not only typifies Ray’s initial rejection of less familiar peers but it
highlights the role the ‘other child’ has on sustaining a social exchange. Observations
from the research suggested that the most extended interactions with either Ray or Isaac
required the initiating child to be persistent and prepared to follow their lead. For
example other children engaged with Isaac more successfully at the interactive
whiteboard if they copied his dances or the sounds that he made. He would then
16
Adult support
An overview of the observation data highlighted that both Ray and Isaac were
often negotiating their own exchanges with their peers without adult support. In other
situations it was evident that the adults took on a range of functions in helping the two
children to make social connections with peers particularly those who were not their
familiar playmates.
Initiating
The staff often initiated social interaction between the lead children and other
peers, either directly or indirectly. The direct approach involved: asking Ray or Isaac to
pass particular items to other children; taking either lead child to play next to a peer; or
requesting that they hold hands with another child when moving activity. Initiating social
exchanges more indirectly involved the adult interpreting what either Ray or Isaac
wanted from a situation. For example when Ray stood watching a group of children who
were having running races the teaching assistant who was acting as the starter asked him
Facilitating
In addition to initiating interactions staff used a more facilitative approach,
Isaac. This could involve modelling actions that the children could choose to try with
others:
I touch the (toy) turtle. Another boy is watching us. Teacher says ‘is it a hat’ and
puts it on the other boy. She puts it on me- I smile and put it on the other boy (Ray
observation commentary)
17
It was also evident that sometimes the adult’s role in facilitating social exchanges
was more passive, involving their presence without any further comment or intervention.
One prolonged exchange between Ray and a boy saw both children giving each other toy
animals and copying actions with these whilst the adult sat with them and watched. When
either Ray or the boy left the table the member of staff stayed and at this point played
observing and letting the children develop the contacts themselves although with the
recurrent proviso that they would intervene ‘if there’s a problem…’ (staff interview).
Such problems as turn taking, ‘not sharing’ or ‘spoiling’ games were regarded as triggers
for their intervention rather than potential starting points for social interactions between
Discussion
A key theme to emerge from this short study was that during the observed
sessions both lead children played more regularly with certain peers but were these
repeatedly seek one another to spend time engaged in a variety of activities’ (Dietrich
2005, 208). Ray and Isaac often prioritised seeking out Hayley, Ely, Saul or Lisa and
additionally the play within these regular peer groupings involved the reciprocity,
18
further signifies friendships between pre-school children (Odom et al. 2006; Sebanc et al.
2007; Hollingsworth and Buysse 2009). Ray and Isaac’s interactions with their regular
playmates were also distinguished by the uniqueness that often characterise friendships
between disabled young people and their classmates (Rossetti 2011). Ray’s tendency to
place toys on Ely’s head or Isaac seeking Saul’s attention by copying vocal sounds were
distinctive features of their social exchanges that were not evident in their play with other
children. Similarly the reciprocal provision of help between the lead children and their
familiar peers in this study reflected ‘a local understanding’ that is often found in
from other helping relationships in which the motives may be for one child to dominate
The staff clearly regarded the lead children’s connections with their regular
playmates as friendships and pointed to the fact that they had been relatively long
standing connections, existing for over a year in Ray’s case and for two nursery terms for
Isaac. Some longitudinal research has suggested that the sustainability of such
relationships reduces significantly over time (Guralnick et al. 2006) and if they do
continue, greater intimacy and sophistication struggle to develop (Guralnick et al. 2007;
Webster and Carter 2013). A further suggestion is that for children identified with SEN,
developmental level (Skinner, Buysse and Bailey 2004; Hollingsworth and Buysse 2009).
It was the case that Ray, Hayley and Ely were all children who were identified with SEN
but Isaac’s close friends were children without this label. As the staff suggested in their
19
interviews it seems that the foundations of Ray and Isaac’s friendship groups were based
enjoyment, rather than being underpinned by any single factor (Dunn 1993, Dietrich
What this study of the social connections made by Ray and Isaac did highlight
was their position as decision makers and their personal influence on how exchanges
progressed both with familiar and less familiar peers. They were active agents in their
own choice-making with a drive to ‘differently and actively negotiate their positions,
make meaning and express themselves in different contexts’ (Nind, Flewitt, and Payler
2010, 668). It is possible that they opted for play with Hayley or Ely, Saul or Lisa more
regularly because they were confident that they could exercise their agency with these
peers more than in other social interactions (Konstantoni, 2012). Outside these
established peer groupings the maintenance of control was much less certain and
consequently the interaction was more transitory. However there were times when they
were more proactive in seeking out other children and did take risks in attempting to
make these connections. Such variation underlines the fluidity of emerging relationships
where ‘insiders and outsiders are terms that are context-specific and under constant
negotiation’ (Konstantoni 2012, 344) and in which all children are continually shaping
their peer culture (Corsaro 2005). In this research a key finding was that Ray and Isaac
20
The significance of Ray and Isaac’s more sporadic social interactions with less
familiar peers is difficult to ascertain from this short study. Some aspects of their
attempts to engage with others appeared to move beyond the indiscriminate exchanges
that are seen to characterise peer activity between children ‘with and without delays’
(Guralnick et al. 2007). Isaac’s decision to frequently return to the snack table and Ray’s
choice to greet some children besides his regular play partners could suggest a level of
social intent. A significant body of research has focused on the motivation of disabled
children’s peers to engage with or befriend children who are labelled as being different
(Meyer 2001; Dyson 2005; Laws and Kelly 2005; Diamond and Hong 2010). However
the findings that emerge from this research are a reminder that the making of social
such preliminary social exchanges from the perspective of both the labelled and non
The outcomes of the support that the adults provided to Ray and Isaac were
interactions for the lead children. Rossetti (2012) found similar variations in practitioner
influence whilst Bentley (2008) highlighted that for children with a label of SEN or
spontaneous interaction. Dietrich (2005) also noted that social connections between
21
children with SEN and their peers could often develop without any specific intervention
plan. In this study practitioners emphasised the importance of ‘standing back’ in their
interviews and appeared sensitive to the need for both Ray and Isaac to experiment and
represented a trigger for the staff to be much more directly involved. However both Ray
and Isaac seemed to use spoiling or refusing to share as a strategy to gain access to
Lofdhal and Haggland 2009). As Broadhead suggests there is a potential for precipitous
connect with each other (Broadhead 2009). Evidently such tensions suggest that the
adult’s role in supporting the development of early friendships is a complex and nuanced
activity (Meyer 2001). However for Ray and Isaac the foundation of any effective adult
support was to recognise them as active agents rather than passive receivers in their
established and exploratory social interactions (Nind, Flewitt and Payler 2010).
Conclusion
From this study it was evident that the lead children made a wide range of social
connections with their peers some of which represented early friendships. The
sustainability of such friendships, the influences on their development, and the qualitative
difference between them and other social connections, are all significant areas for future
investigation. The pilot study also highlighted the significance of both lead children’s
agency in respect of their influence on social exchanges and their response to any adult
support. Their actions began to reveal how they saw friendships, serving as a reminder
22
that their choices and preferences needed to be understood before any presumptions were
made about which children might be encouraged to play with them or how to support
their socialising with others. All children have ‘a potential to contribute to societal
change’ (Lofdhal 2006, 87) and this study emphasized that Ray and Isaac contributed as
6842 words
1
Portage is a pre-school educational service that provides children and their families with a
regular home visit from a trained Portage visitor. A learning programme is developed and
practiced by the home visitor and parents with the aim of addressing the child’s special
educational needs.
2
All early years settings in England were required to follow this Code, which set out a graduated
process of assessment of special educational need. Children identified at the ‘Early Action
Plus’ stage in the framework would be receiving external support in addition to their pre-
Notes on contributors
John Parry is a lecturer in Education at the Open University in the UK. His research focus is: the
development of inclusion in schools and early year’s provision; early intervention; and social
interaction in inclusive settings. He has a particular interest in the application of research into
practice. He has co-written Special Needs in the Early Years (2013) published by Routledge and
edited Equality, Participation and Inclusion: Diverse Contexts (2010) published by Routledge,
Taylor & Francis.
23
References
Bentley, J.C. 2008. “Lessons from the 1%: Children with Labels of Severe Disabilities
and their Peers as Architects of Inclusive Education.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education 12, (5-6): 543-561. Doi: 10.1080/13603110802377599.
Birbeck,D.,and M.Drummond. 2005. “Interviewing, and Listening to the Voices
of Very Young Children on Body Image and Perceptions of Self.” Early Child
Developmentand Care 176, (6): 579–596. Doi: 10.1080/03004430500131379.
Broadhead, P. 2009. “Conflict Resolution and Children’s Behaviour: Observing and
Understanding Social and Cooperative Play in Early Years Educational Settings.”
Early Years 29, (2): 105–118. Doi: 10.1080/09575140902864446.
Buysse,V., B.Davis Goldman, and M.L. Skinner. 2002. “Setting Effects on Friendship
Formation between Young Children With and Without Disabilities.” Exceptional
Children 68, (4): 503-517.
Clark, A. 2004. “The Mosaic Approach and Research with Young Children.” In The
Reality of Research with Children and Young People, edited by V. Lewis, M.
Kellet, C. Robinson, S. Fraser, and S. Ding, London: Sage.
Clark, A. 2005. “Listening To and Involving Young Children: A Review of Research and
Practice.” Early Child Development and Care 175, (6): 489–505. Doi:
10.1080/03004430500131288.
Corbin,J.M. and A.L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Corsaro, W. 2005. The Sociology of Childhood (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Corson,K. and M.J. Colwell. 2012. “Whispers in the Ear: Preschool Children's
Conceptualisation of Secrets and Confidants.” Early Child Development and
Care. Doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.719227
Deegan, J.G. 1996. Children’s Friendships in Culturally Diverse Classrooms. London:
Falmer Press.
de Groot Kim, S. 2010. “ ‘There’s Elly, It Must be Tuesday’: Discontinuity in Child Care
24
Programs and Its Impact on the Development of Peer Relationships in Young
Children.” Early Childhood Education Journal, no.38:153–164. Doi:
10.1007/s10643-010-0400-6
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) 2001. Special Educational Needs Code of
Practice. Nottingham: DfES
Diamond, L., W. Le Furgy and S.Blass .1993 . “Attitudes of Pre-school Children Toward
Their Peers With Disabilities: A Year Long Investigation in Integrated
Classrooms.” TheJournal of Genetic Psychology 154, (2): 215-221.
Diamond,K.E., and S.Hong. 2010. “Young Children’s Decisions to Include Peers With
Physical Disabilities in Play.” Journal of Early Intervention 32, (3): 163-177. Doi:
10.1177/1053815110371332.
Dickens, M. 2011. Listening to Young Disabled Children. London: National Children’s
Bureau.
Dietrich, S.L., 2005. “A look at Friendships between Pre-school Aged Children With and
Without Disabilities in Two Inclusive Classrooms.” Journal of Early Childhood
Research 3, (2): 193-215. Doi: 10.1177/1476718X05053933.
Dunn, J. 1993. Young Children’s Close Relationships- Beyond Attachment.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dyson, L. 2005. “Kindergarten Children’s Understanding and Attitudes Toward People
with Disabilities.” Topics in Early Childhood Education 25, (2): 95-105.
Engle,J.M., N.L. McElwain, and N. Lasky. 2011. “Presence and Quality of Kindergarten
Children’s Friendships: Concurrent and Longitudinal Associations with Child
Adjustment in the Early School Years.” Infant and Child Development, no.20:
365–386. Doi: 10.1002/icd.706.
Guralnick,M.J., R.T.Connor, M.A.Hammond, J.M.Gottman, and K.Kinnish. 1996. “The
Peer Relations of Pre-school Children with Communication Disorders.” Child
Development, no.67: 471-489.
Guralnick, M.J. 1999. “The Nature and Meaning of Social Integration for Young
Children with Mild Developmental Delays in Inclusive Settings.” Journal of
Early Intervention 22, (1): 70-86. Doi: 10.1177/105381519902200107.
25
Guralnick, M.J., M.A Hammond, R.T. Connor, and B.Neville. 2006. “Stability, Change,
and Correlates of the Peer Relationships of Young C hildren with Mild
Developmental Delays.” Child Development 77, (2): 312-324. Doi: 0009-
3920/2006/7702-0005 .
Guralnick, M.J., B.Neville, M.A.Hammond, and R.T.Connor. 2007. “The Friendships of
Young Children with Developmental Delays: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, no. 28: 64–79. Doi:
10.1016/j.appdev.2006.10.004.
Hill,M. 2005. Ethical considerations in researching children’s experiences. In
Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods, edited by S.Greene
and D.Hogan. London:Sage.
Hollingsworth, H., and V. Buysse. 2009. “Establishing Friendships in Early Childhood
Inclusive Settings: What Role Do Parents and Teachers Play?” Journal of Early
Intervention 31, (4): 287-307. Doi: 10.1177/1053815109352659.
Konstantoni, K. 2012. “Children's Peer Relationships and Social Identities: Exploring
Cases of Young Children's Agency and Complex Interdependencies from the
Minority World.” Children's Geographies 10, (3):337-346. Doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2012.693382.
Langston, A., L.Abbott, V.Lewis, and M.Kellett. 2005. Early Childhood. In The
Reality of Research with Children and Young People, edited by V. Lewis, M.
Kellet, C. Robinson, S. Fraser, and S. Ding. London: Sage.
Laws, G., and E.Kelly. 2005. “The Attitudes and Friendship Intentions in United
Kingdom Mainstream Schools Towards Peers with Physical or Intellectual
Disabilities.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 52,
(2): 79-99. Doi: 10.1080/10349120500086298.
Lillvist, A. 2010. “Observations of Social Competence of Children in Need of Special
Support Based on Traditional Disability Categories Versus a Functional
Approach.” Early Child Development and Care 180, (9): 1129-1142. Doi:
10.1080/03004430902830297.
Lindsey, E.W. 2002. “Pre-school Children’s Friendships and Peer Acceptance: Links to
26
Social Competence.” Child Study Journal 32, (3): 145- 156.
Lofdahl, A. 2006. “Grounds for Values and Attitudes – Children’s Play and Peer Cultures
in Pre- school.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 4, (1): 77-88. Doi:
10.1177/1476718X06059791.
Matthews, A. and J.Rix. 2013. “Early Intervention: Parental Involvement, Child
Agency and Participation in Creative Play.” Early Years : An International
Research Journal 33, (3):239-251. Doi: 10.1080/09575146.2013.766151.
Meyer,L.H. 2001. “The Impact of Inclusion on Children’s Lives: Multiple Outcomes and
Friendships in Particular.” International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education 48, (1): 9-31. Doi: 10.1080/10349120120036288 .
Morris,J. 2003. “Including All Children: Finding Out About the Experiences of Children
with Communicative and/or Cognitive Impairments.” Children and Society, no.
17: 307-348. Doi: 10.1002/CHI.754.
Nabours,L. 1997. “Playmate Preferences of Children who are Typically Developing for
their Classmates With Special Needs.” Mental Retardation 35, (2): 107-113.
Naraian,S. 2008. “Institutional Stories and Self-stories: Investigating Peer Interpretations
of Significant Disability.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 12, (5-6):
525-542. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110802377581
Naraian, S. 2011. “Teacher Discourse, Peer Relations, Significant Disability: Unraveling
One Friendship Story.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
24, (1): 97-115. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390903473388
Nind,M., R.Flewitt., and J.Payler. 2010. “The Social Experience of Early Childhood for
Children with Learning Disabilities: Inclusion, Competence and Agency.” British
Journal of Sociology of Education 31, (6): 653-670.
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2010.515113
Oliver,M. 1996. Understanding Disability- from Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan
Press.
Odom,L., C. Zercher., L.Shouming., J. Marquart., S. Sandall., and W. Brown. 2006.
27
“Social Acceptance and Rejection of Preschool Children With Disabilities: A
Mixed Method Analysis.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98, (4): 807-823.
Doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.807
Paige-Smith, A. and J.Rix. 2011. Researching Early Intervention and Young Children’s
Perspectives – Developing and Using a Listening to Children Approach. British
Journal of Special Education 38, (1): 28-36. Doi: 10.1111/J.1471-
3802.2006.00064.x
Robinson,C. and M.Kellett. 2005. Power. In The Reality of Research with Children and
Young People, edited by V. Lewis, M. Kellet, C. Robinson, S. Fraser, and S.
Ding. London: Sage.
Rossetti, Z. S. 2011. “‘That’s How We Do It’: Friendship Work Between High School
Students with and without Autism or Developmental Delay.” Research &
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 36, (1-2): 23-33.
Rossetti, Z. S. 2012. “Helping or Hindering: the Role of Secondary Educators in
Facilitating Friendship Opportunities Among Students With and Without Autism
or Developmental Disability. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16,
(12):1259-1272. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.557448
Sebanc,A., K.Kearns, M.Hernandez, and K.Galvin . 2007. “Predicting Having a Best
Friend in Young Children: Individual Characteristics and Friendship Features.”
Journal of Genetic Psychology 168, (1): 81-95.
Skanfors,L., A.Lofdhal, and S.Haggland. 2009. “Hidden Spaces and Places in the Pre-
school: Withdrawal Strategies in Pre-school Children’s Peer Cultures. Journal of
Early Childhood Research 7, (1): 94-109. Doi: 10.1177/1476718X08098356.
Skinner,M., V.Buysse and D.B. Bailey. 2004. “Effects of Age and Developmental Status
of Partners on Play of Preschoolers with Disabilities.” Journal of Early
Intervention 26, (3): 194-203. Doi: 10.1177/105381510402600303.
Smith,A., J.Duncan and K.Marshall. 2005. “Children’s perspectives on their learning:
exploring methods.” Early Child Development and Care 175, (6): 473 -487. Doi:
10.1080/03004430500131270.
28
Stephenson,A. 2009. “Horses in the Sandpit: Photography, Prolonged Involvement and
‘Stepping Back’ as Strategies for Listening to Children’s Voices. Early Child
Development and Care 179, (2):131-141. Doi: 10.1080/03004430802667047.
Swain, J., S.French., and C.Cameron. 2003. Controversial Issues in a Disabling Society.
Buckingham:Open University Press.
Webster, A.A., and M. Carter. 2007. “Social Relationships and Friendships of Children
with Developmental Disabilities: Implications for Inclusive Settings. A
Systematic Review.” Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 32, (3):
200-213. Doi: 10.1080/13668250701549443.
Webster, A.A., and M. Carter. 2013. “A Descriptive Examination of the Types of
Relationships Formed Between Children with Developmental Disability and their
Closest Peers in Inclusive School Settings.” Journal of Intellectual &
Developmental Disability 38, (1):1-11. Doi: 10.3109/13668250.2012.743650.
29