Sociometric methods and difference: a force for good – or yet more harm

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. This paper offers a critique of sociometrics as a ubiquitous method of measuring social relationships among children in social groups such as school classes. This is important in relation to disability politics and research as the apparently scientific measures are frequently used in the process of labelling children or predis-posing the children involved, or others involved with them, to view disabled and other children in particular ways. We open a debate about judgements concerning whether the use of sociometric techniques needs to be better informed by questions about the underpinning normalising frameworks on which they depend, about the connotations of blame associated with particular sociometric statuses, and about the way that research constructs difficulties and reflects an adult agenda, marginalising the voices of (disabled) children. We argue for the value of the transactional turn in understanding the implications of this approach and for highlighting alternative perspectives. Points of interest • SSl approach researchers use to measure the popularity of individuals. Often researchers ask participants to name the people they like or dislike spending time with and calculations are used to determine a category of popularity for each individual. • We argue that this approach is based on an assumption that all individuals need and want a certain number of friends rather than understanding the varying nature of social experiences. We include the voices of disabled children and researchers in countering particular assumptions. • This practice of categorising individuals as popular, and so on, may construct and reinforce social difficulties, especially for disabled children. It fails to consider the role of the environment in creating these difficulties, and instead may blame the individual. • Lastly, this approach may have a detrimental impact on behaviour and interactions and may affect …