Introduction

In the State of Victoria, Australia, an estimated 5000 people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) live in approximately 900 shared supported accommodation services with 24‐h staff support. Many other people with IDs live in supported living options with ‘drop in’ support tailored to their needs. Research has demonstrated that people living in these types of supported accommodation services have relatively poor outcomes on the quality of life domains of social inclusion and interpersonal relationships (see for example, Clement and Bigby 2010; Bigby et al. 2012; Bigby et al. 2016). Many have few relationships with people other than paid staff, co‐residents and family (Forrester‐Jones et al. 2006; Clement and Bigby 2009; Verdonschot et al. 2009; Bigby et al. 2016); some feel lonely and experience negative community attitudes (Bigby et al. 2016).

Social inclusion has often been assessed using the binary of community presence, understood as the use of places or facilities available to everyone, and the more highly valued concept community participation, understood as a network of relationships between people with and without an ID (O'Brien and Lyle 1987; Clement and Bigby 2009). However, researchers are beginning to use the concept of encounter, originating from urban geography (Fincher and Iveson 2008), to challenge this binary, suggesting that community presence encompasses different types of interactions between strangers, some of which help to break down social exclusion or act as building blocks for friendship (Bigby and Wiesel 2011; Wiesel et al. 2013; Bredewold et al. 2016). Simplican et al. (2015, p.25) have argued that encounter ‘offers a way to modernize the concept of community participation, as many day‐to‐day interactions fall under the category of encounter’.

Wiesel et al. (2013) identified six types of encounters experienced by people with IDs in community places: ‘moments of conviviality’ (involving shared activity or common purpose); ‘fleeting exchanges’ (simple acknowledgement by others); ‘service transactions’ (interactions around exchange of goods or services); ‘encounters in a distinct social space’ (interactions in segregated activities); ‘exclusionary encounters’ (disrespectful interactions that negatively reinforce difference); and ‘unfulfilled encounters’ (unrealised potential for interaction). These different types of encounter are not exclusive, for example, encounters in a distinct social space may be convivial. The timing and frequency of encounters can vary from being short lived, the only time two people interact, to occurring intermittently or episodically over longer periods. More frequent or regular encounters mean there is a greater likelihood that people will become recognised or get to know each other by name (Wiesel and Bigby 2016). Some research suggests the potential for encounters and their nature are influenced by environmental and social factors such as type of place, design, ambience, type of activities, regularity of attendance and the quality of individual support available to the person with ID (Amado et al. 2013; Wiesel et al. 2013; Bigby and Wiesel 2015; Wiesel and Bigby 2016). For example, Wiesel and Bigby (2016, p. 8) used the term ‘inclusionary places’ as ones that people with IDs could ‘access, participate in activities and were made to feel welcome’. There is however very scant evidence about the necessary conditions or strategies to facilitate encounters between people with IDs and other community members.

Research among non‐disabled people has shown companion animals can act as catalysts for encounters (McNicholas and Collis 2000; Wood et al. 2005; Wood et al. 2015). For example, in an Australian survey, 58% of pet owners indicated they had got to know people and made friends through having pets (McHarg et al. 1995). While some research has considered the therapeutic role of pets or companion animals for people with IDs, none has explored the role of animals in facilitating encounters (Allen and Blascovich 1996; Miller and Ingram 2000; Podberscek et al. 2001; Becker 2002). One of the reasons for this is likely to be the rate of pet ownership by people with IDs which anecdotally is low due to costs, difficulties posed by shared households and extra burden on staff. However, several studies have shown the benefits of service dogs to the social participation of adults and children with physical disabilities, which include, facilitating social interactions with passers‐by (Hart et al. 1987; Mader et al. 1989; Fairman and Huebner 2000; Shyne et al. 2012); reducing the negative effects of social ostracism (Eddy et al. 1988; Mader et al. 1989; Shyne et al. 2012); and, helping individuals who use wheelchairs to feel more secure and confident in public (Hart et al. 1987). These studies suggest the potential role for dogs in facilitating encounters for people with IDs.

Difficulties associated with pet ownership, however, point to the need to consider other avenues of enabling people with IDs to have regular contact with a dog as a pet rather than an assistance animal or therapeutic aid. In order to investigate the potential for dogs to act as catalysts for social inclusion of people with IDs, we trialled a visiting dog walking program in collaboration with two qualified and experienced dog handlers from a national not‐for‐profit organisation. The research question was, are there differences in the nature and number of encounters between people with IDs and community members when a dog is present compared with not present? In undertaking this research, we aimed to explore further the concept of encounter and build on the limited evidence about ways of facilitating social inclusion. This is very timely given the reformed market for disability services in the UK and envisaged by the National Disability Insurance Scheme in Australia which are likely to reduce reliance on day centres and seek more individualised interventions to support social inclusion (Whitaker and McIntosh 2000).