**13. Limitations**

disabilities and the wider community may be the key to changing attitudes and thus enhancing genuine integration [61, 72]. Thus, the micro-neighbourhood design combined with the random survey allowed the views of those who may have been expected to have contact with people with learning disabilities as living in the direct neighbourhood of a community-home

It seems that significant contact with community-homes is very limited, which is supported by Abbott and McConkey [61, 72, 73]. While respondents maintained that they had contact with people with learning disabilities, with 96% reporting contact in the micro-neighbourhood and 64% in the no-community-home sample, this was not reflected in the type and quality of contact. Only 48% of the community-home sample and 36% of the no-community-home sample stated they had 'real contact', implying that significant contact is lacking. The foregoing highlights the point that proximity to a group home does not necessarily imply neighbourly contact. The evolution of community living options for people with learning disabilities has therefore to be accompanied by an awareness of the prevailing social attitudes and the amount of contact people with learning disabilities have with neighbours and the

When one considers that those in the general population were more likely to report interest in becoming involved with people with learning disabilities in community-homes, this suggests that this expressed wish is an abstract statement that does not occur in reality for those living in the micro-neighbourhood in closer proximity to people with learning disabilities. The contact is superficial and reflects a major deficit in the level of relationships. Therefore, when compared with the positive attitudes expressed, it seems there is evidence of a discrepancy between attitudes in principle and attitudes in fact. Ichheiser's [4] theory serves to explain how people living in areas where there were no-community-homes express no reservations about having people with learning disabilities as neighbours ('*views in principle'*); whereas '*view in fact'* surface when a community-based home for people with learning disabilities is next door;

While the findings show significant differences between the two samples, the research cannot control or elucidate the various possible factors that may have contributed to these differences. In general, it is apparent that the results provide some evidence of the level of awareness and attitudes that exist and are illuminating in that it leaves many questions yet to be answered. These include questions relating to the determinants of social inclusiveness and more importantly quality of life issues for people with learning disabilities living a normal life in the community. It begs one to question the normality and the adequacy of such services in seeking to achieve a normal life in such community settings. The value of building relationships within communities is pivotal, creating a sense of community and changing perceptions

*The only reasonable thing we can do about illusions and misinterpretations which are deeply rooted in the nature of our human existence is to neutralise their too disturbing effects by increasing awareness* 

The hope still rests on the endeavours of learning disability service providers and government agencies in promoting neighbourhood relationships and social inclusiveness. As people

to be compared with the general population.

202 Learning Disabilities - An International Perspective

not in my backyard or the NIMBY effect.

relating to disability. Ichheiser [4] suggested that:

*within our social perception* [p. 35]*.*

wider community.

The research may have over-simplified public attitudes, but future research in this area could be directed at the development of a more sensitive and flexible methodology capable of assessing a wider range of attitudes, using an instrument with 5, 6 or 7 point Likert scales.

It is important to highlight that the study distinguishes between areas with and without community-homes for people with learning disabilities; this in fact was not the case as in the random sample community-homes for people with learning disabilities could have existed in the surrounding districts.

Due to time constraints, it was not possible to perform additional statistical tests to ascertain whether positive attitudes were a function of or were mediated by social class or educational record and to what degree age influenced attitude. This would have involved performing further multi-variate analysis on such variables. Future studies could also address the idea of performing content analysis using ethnography on the qualitative data from this research. The research focused on social contact, but assessment of the quality of the relationships involved was beyond the scope of the present study. Assessment in this regard could look at using discriminant analysis in order to detect root differences between samples.
