Students identified as having special educational needs (SEN) represent a distinct but heterogeneous group within the educational system. More recently and as a result of international efforts, there has been a growing momentum towards more inclusive educational provision in general education settings, especially within elementary schools. It is increasingly argued that students with SEN will particularly gain social benefits (Lindsay, 2007) as well as academic (Frederickson, Dunsmuir, Lang, & Monsen, 2004) by being more included in general education classrooms. Inclusive settings are seen by parents and educators as providing more opportunities for enhanced social outcomes, such as increased friendships, social interactions with peers and active participation in social and play activities (Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010; Symes & Humphrey, 2011). Parents in particular hope that their child can build positive relationships with typically developing peers (Koster, Pijl, Nakken, & Van Houten, 2010). Additionally, Avramidis and Norwich’s (2002) classic review of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion showed evidence of positive attitudes, but found no evidence of acceptance of a total inclusion or ‘zero reject’ approach to special educational provision. Despite the rhetoric, there is substantial evidence to show that students identified as having SEN predominantly remain socially excluded and are likely to have fewer friends (Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2013; Mamas, 2013; Pijl, et al., 2008).

Two main research questions are being addressed:

1. What is the position of SEN students in the classroom social networks?

2. What does the structure of the network may reveal about the social participation of SEN students?

This paper draws on a comparative study between two countries; USA and Switzerland. In particular, a critical case study design (Yin, 2009) has been adopted to examine the concept of social participation from a social network perspective in four classrooms, across two schools, one in each country. This study draws on the theory of social capital (Putman, 2000). Social capital represents our well-developed theory as part of the critical case study design, and the four classrooms/cases were chosen on the grounds that they would allow a better understanding of this theory (Bryman, 2012) in terms of students’ social interactions and friendships in their classrooms’ social networks. The term social capital has been used to describe norms and certain resources that emerge from social networks (Ferlander, 2007). Putnam (2007, p. 137) defined social capital as ‘social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness’. According to Scott (2013), social networks are a particular form of social capital that individuals/students, can employ to enhance their advantages or opportunities. A notion of social capital is that social relationships provide access to resources that can be exchanged, borrowed and leveraged to facilitate achieving goals (Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2012). Therefore, classroom social networks built up through friendship ties or other relational ties may provide access to social capital. 

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration / inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056. Boer, A. D., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165-181. doi:10.1080/08856251003658694. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Los Angeles i.e. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Social Participation of Students with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Seventh Grade. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1952-1956. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.147. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferlander, S. (2007). The Importance of Different Forms of Social Capital for Health. Acta Sociologica, 50(2), 115–128. doi:10.1177/0001699307077654. Frederickson, N., Dunsmuir, S., Lang, J., & Monsen, J. J. (2004). Mainstream‐ special school inclusion partnerships: Pupil, parent and teacher perspectives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(1), 37-57. doi:10.1080/1360311032000159456. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1-24. doi:10.1348/000709906x156881. Mamas, C. (2013). Understanding inclusion in Cyprus. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 480-493. doi:10.1080/08856257.2013.820461. Pijl, S. J., Frostad, P., & Flem, A. (2008). The Social Position of Pupils with Special Needs in Regular Schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 387-405. doi:10.1080/00313830802184558. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x. Scott, J. (2013). Social Network Analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Symes, W., & Humphrey, N. (2011). School factors that facilitate or hinder the ability of teaching assistants to effectively support pupils with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in mainstream secondary schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(3), 153-161. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01196.x. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.