Togetherish: On Being Together Well, and Well, Together

A paper Literature Review from my Research Methods class in August of 2025.

Abstract

This literature review explores how exposure to diverse interactions in semi-public spaces influences social skill development, trust, and well-being across the lifespan. Drawing on descriptive, correlational, and effectiveness studies, the review highlights play as a foundation for learning and connection, demonstrating its role as a universal process that fosters both individual and community development. Research shows that diversity alone does not build trust; rather, the design of spaces and the quality of encounters shape whether diversity strengthens or fragments the social fabric. The review further considers how physical distancing, misinformation, and shifting technologies affect social capital, with implications for health and longevity.

Findings suggest that social workers must advocate for environments that provide “practice spaces” for low-stakes, repeated interactions across difference. Policy recommendations include prioritizing the intentional design of inclusive spaces and addressing social isolation, a recognized Grand Challenge for Social Work. Future research should examine emerging dynamics such as human-AI co-experiences and their role in fostering empathy and connection. Ultimately, the evidence underscores that building trust and community through inclusive design is not only a matter of social equity but of public health and collective well-being.

                                           Introduction                         

The proverb, “the way we do anything is the way we do everything,” invites us to look at the threads of traditional and historical social fabric for guidance in designing stronger, more socially sustainable communities today. Shared public spaces are as old as human civilization—markets, theaters, and parks have long provided opportunities for community members to spend time together, informally practicing the social skills that form the basis of healthy, functioning societies.

Yet the irony of globalization is that while it brings us into closer physical proximity, it can pull us further apart socially. Diversity, once a rarity, has become a defining feature of modern life, but as Wessendorf (2014) notes in her concept of commonplace diversity, proximity alone does not ensure connection. Unmanaged cultural differences can provoke fear-based reactions that, while sometimes mistaken for hostility, are often rooted in discomfort with difference. Left unaddressed, such discomfort undermines both personal well-being and societal sustainability (United Nations Development Programme, as cited in Barron-Pastor, 2010).

Research Question 

In communities facing unexpected cultural difference, how do unstructured and indirect interactions in diverse, semi-public spaces compare to living in segregated environments in building socially sustainable—inter-culturally and -ethnically collaborative—communities?

This literature review focuses on the Grand Challenge of eradicating social isolation as a strategy for repairing and strengthening the social fabric (Grand Challenges for Social Work, n.d.-a; n.d.-b). I present arguments for reexamining parallel play—a stage in Parten’s (1932) model of social development—as both a tool and a practice for exercising underused social skills in our increasingly diverse yet persistently segregated environments. Rather than asking only how to make people feel safe, this review explores design and policy strategies that create opportunities for organic, low-pressure engagement across difference.

Descriptive Studies

The Highest Form of Research

Play is more than leisure—it is the foundation for how we begin to learn, relate, and understand the world around us. Psychologist Jean Piaget called play “the work of children” (Pacific Northern Academy, 2021), anthropologist Donald E. Brown (1992) acknowledges it as an absolute universal of the social realm (p.47), and the term is mentioned 235 times in the architecturally esteemed book, A Pattern Language (Alexander et al., 1977). I thus contend that the interdisciplinary recognition of this term calls for an equally collaborative framework—one similar to the solution itself. Rooted in one particular stage—Parallel play—amongst disciplines both requires and builds trust in the perspective of others, and confidence in a shared end goal.

Parallel Play in the Fabric of the Social World

Bakeman and Brownlee (1980) offer a middle ground between Parten’s (1932) recognition of parallel play as a developmental phase and Smith’s (1978, as cited in Bakeman and Brownlee, 1980) dismissal of it as negligible. Their term “together” aligns with what I refer to as “togetherish”—shared spaces that foster internal growth without requiring direct interaction. These “third places,” as coined by Oldenburg (1977), exist outside the home and work—first and second spaces, respectively—”lend a public balance to the increased privatization of home life” yet “are nothing more than informal public gathering places” (1977, p. 6). The true value of these spaces comes from the observational opportunities they make available, echoed by the learning structures of trade disciplines (Chan, 2015). 

A Frayed Fabric

We cannot discount the role that fear plays in the threads of the social fabric. In order to build stronger, and more resilient communities, we must examine the fabric itself—observing not only where it is frayed—lacking reliability, security, and trust—but when these fractures have historically appeared more or less severe. Whether “the anti-community character of the postwar suburban landscape” (Oldenburg, 1977), increasingly pedestrian un-friendly streets (Hamilton-Baillie, 2006), or COVID-19’s normalization of disengagement (Cannon, et al., 2024), time away from others leads to unfamiliarity, discomfort, and ultimately fear of difference. 

We Are Human

By and large, we generally have more in common with one another than what separates us. The trouble is setting the differences aside for long enough to notice shared traits, preferences, and even cultural ideals. 

Alexander et al. (1977) suggest in their book A Pattern Language that certain physical and social patterns appear so consistently across cultures that they feel are universally true. They say “the homogeneous and undifferentiated character of modern cities kills all variety of lifestyles and arrests the growth of individual character” ( p. 43). These claims align with the anthropological framework of absolute- and near-universals, which identify recurring features of human behavior and culture across societies (Brown, 1992).  Mere exposure to difference—sharing space with cultural, ethnic, generational, and gender diversity—can begin to mute our negative narratives (Uslaner, 2009). According to Hamilton-Baillie (2006), “shared space could [...] be seen as the default mode before the separation of vehicles and pedestrians became the accepted approach to designing public spaces.” 

While diversity with segregation is guaranteed to result in social tensions, Ouf and El-Zafarany (2018) show how diversity and inclusion in public spaces influence happiness and well-being, underscoring the need for intentional design to ensure accessibility and inclusion. Without such design, diversity alone rarely leads to genuine interaction. Fleeting encounters in third places such as libraries help people feel “at home,” and more structured environments such as community centers cultivate deeper relationships (Peterson, 2016). These instances of “commonplace diversity” suggest environments where diversity is so normalized it becomes almost invisible (Wessendorf, 2014). Although this can reduce overt conflict, it may also prevent close relationships from forming, even as it builds “bridges” that challenge stereotypes (Amir, 2002, as cited in Wessendorf, 2014). Yet despite the benefits of inclusive design, developers often resist these approaches, because they rarely yield clear financial returns and introduce complexity. As Karki (2015) observes, mandatory inclusionary zoning often depresses developers’ profits unless offset by substantial incentives—a misalignment that discourages adoption in a profit-driven market.

Correlational Studies

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge never seen before—a truly global public health threat. In the swarm of communication and decision making was a near-universal agreement to establish distance. Only, rather than asking to “physically” distance, we were told to “social” distance. David and Roberts (2021) distinguish between these two, saying that physical distancing serves to limit disease transmission, while social distancing erodes social capital by reducing opportunities for meaningful interaction. The kinds of interactions that make difference less defiant. Aminnejad & Alikhani (2020) suggested ameliorating this misnomer to “to maintain and promote social closeness [...and] to protect the mental health of our community” (p. 1457). The reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic blurred the concepts of social versus physical proximity, normalizing isolation in ways that continue to affect communities. Guan and Wang (2023) show that well-designed community public spaces can counteract this erosion by fostering repeated, low-stakes encounters that rebuild trust and belonging, effectively redrawing the lines of comfort zones. Still, unfamiliar territory is being charted. 

Practice Makes Permanent 

Now, emerging research pushes us to consider another dimension of contact: co-experiencing with AI (Qian & Wan, 2025). These findings reveal that shared experiences with embodied or disembodied AI agents can enhance social bonding and empathy, suggesting that—even in increasingly mediated environments—meaningful psychological connection remains possible. Still, it raises a bittersweet realization: while AI contact may offer solace, it may not fully replace or repair the human-to-human trust we’ve lost—underlining the continued importance of designing real-world spaces and opportunities for connection.

Evidence points to the benefits of deliberate practice and social activities that are “animated by a shared everyday ethic of public sociability, with strangers regularly engaging in fleeting moments of sociable interaction” (Horgan, Liinamaa, Dakin, Meligrana, & Xu, 2020, p. 143). These “sites of promise” (Amin, 2006 as cited in Cattell, 2008) “sites of promise” highlight an important feature in the effort to increase rates of engagement through intentional design. Similarly, e 

Despite arguments that cell phone and social media use could maintain social connection during the COVID-19 pandemic (David & Roberts, 2021), the so-called “infodemic”—the rapid spread of misinformation—only compounded challenges in combating the virus (Zarocostas, 2020). Oldenburg (1977) reminds us that these struggles echo an earlier “struggl[e] against the anti-community character of the postwar suburban landscape” (p. 6), when people moved away from the organic diversity of urban centers. More recently, Pachana and Wuthrich (2021) found that older adults with lower social support visited their GP more frequently, suggesting that strong social ties can buffer health concerns and reduce unnecessary medical visits (p. 355).

Trust, Contact, and the Space Between

Although the research suggests exponential benefits affected by diversity, trust in diverse neighborhoods isn’t simply a byproduct of demographics—it’s built through the frequency and quality of interethnic contact (Gundelach (2014). Neighborhood diversity can only foster trust when those living side-by-side have regular opportunities for meaningful interethnic interaction (Gundelach & Freitag (2014). Without such opportunities, physical proximity may well be overridden by social distance that breeds hostility.

Effectiveness Studies

Dr. Nadine Burke’s (2001) groundbreaking research on the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) revealed that early trauma affects far more than mental, emotional, and physical health. It can shape long-term well-being, influencing life expectancy and increasing vulnerability to a range of diseases once thought to be purely genetic, behavioral, or environmental in origin. Harris and Daley (2008) add that shared, playful activities—even in adult contexts—strengthen social capital and yield measurable benefits for both mental and physical health.

Designing for Connection That Works

Ethridge and Branscomb’s (2009) insight on shared parallel learning processes between children and adults reinforces my belief that “practice spaces” for casual, low-stakes interaction are vital across both culture and the lifespan. Adults benefit from these environments much like children benefit from playgrounds—through repetition, experimentation, and gradual confidence-building. The idea that we can learn social skills without experience is not only erroneous, but a dangerous farce to the potential sustainability of our communities.

Nesterova, Portera, and Milani (2022) connect this developmental lens to the broader goal of socially sustainable communities. They frame intercultural competence not simply as a personal skill but as a community asset—one that depends on both structured and spontaneous opportunities to grow.

In both cases, the effectiveness hinges on design and intention. Diversity alone is not enough. The spaces themselves, along with the programs and norms that govern them, must lower barriers to participation and increase the likelihood of repeated, positive encounters. The result is not just a friendlier plaza or a more inclusive event—it’s the steady weaving of trust into the social fabric.

Outcomes, Implications, and Conclusion

This review highlights how social connection, trust, and well-being are deeply shaped by the spaces in which interactions occur. Descriptive studies show that play and low-stakes encounters provide the foundation for social skill development across the lifespan. Correlational research emphasizes that diversity alone does not foster trust—quality interaction and intentional design matter. Effectiveness studies underscore that well-designed, inclusive spaces can strengthen social capital, while disconnection, such as through physical distancing or poorly designed environments, has measurable harms for both mental and physical health.

For social workers, these findings stress the importance of advocating for “practice spaces” that encourage connection, whether in schools, neighborhoods, or community centers. Policy should move beyond diversity metrics toward investing in environments that facilitate repeated, inclusive encounters—bridging divides and reducing social isolation, a recognized Grand Challenge for Social Work (Grand Challenges for Social Work, n.d.-b). Research should further examine how new dynamics, such as human-AI co-experiences, influence social bonding and empathy. Ultimately, addressing the design of our shared environments is not just a matter of inclusion, but of public health, equity, and the social fabric itself.

Resources

1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.

   
   

2. Aminnejad, R., & Alikhani, R. (2020). Physical distancing or social distancing: that is the question. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 67(10), 1457-1458.

   
   

3. Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. R. (1980). The Strategic Use of Parallel Play: A Sequential Analysis. Child Development, 51(3), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129476

   
   

4. Barron-Pastor, J. C. (2010). Uprooting fear of cultural diversity: becoming participative together. Children as Decision Makers in Education, 107.

   
   

5. Brown, D. E. (1992). Human universals, human nature, and human culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 447–470). Oxford University Press.

   
   

6. Burke, N. J., Hellman, J. L., Scott, B. G., Weems, C. F., & Carrion, V. G. (2011). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population. Child abuse & neglect, 35(6), 408-413.
   

7. Cannon, M. L., Bergman, L., & Finlay, J. M. (2024). COVID-19 pandemic impacts on community connections and third place engagement: A qualitative analysis of older Americans. Journal of aging and environment, 38(4), 381-397.
   

8. Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health & place, 14(3), 544-561.
   

9. Chan, S. (2015) The contribution of observation to apprentices’ learning, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 67:4, 442-459, DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2015.1062999
   

10. David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2021). Smartphone use during the COVID-19 pandemic: Social versus physical distancing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1034.
    

11. Ethridge, E. A., & Branscomb, K. R. (2009). Learning through action: Parallel learning processes in children and adults. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 400-408.
    

12. Grand Challenges for Social Work. (n.d.-a). Eradicate social isolation. Retrieved July 10, 2025, from https://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/eradicate-social-isolation/
    

13. Grand Challenges for Social Work. (n.d.-b). Grand Challenges for Social Work. Retrieved July 10, 2025, from https://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/
    

14. Guan, S., & Wang, J. (2023). Research on the optimal design of community public space from the perspective of social capital. Sustainability, 15(12), 9767.
    

15. Gundelach, B. (2014). In Diversity We Trust: The Positive Effect of Ethnic Diversity on Outgroup Trust. Political Behavior, 36(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9220-x
    

16. Gundelach, B., & Freitag, M. (2014). Neighbourhood diversity and social trust: An empirical analysis of interethnic contact and group-specific effects. Urban Studies, 51(6), 1236-1256.
    

17. Hamilton-Baillie, B. (2008). Towards shared space. Urban Design International, 13(2), 130-138.
    

18. Harris, P., & Daley, J. (2008). Exploring the contribution of play to social capital in institutional adult learning settings. Australian journal of adult learning, 48(1), 50-70.
    

19. Horgan, M., Liinamaa, S., Dakin, A., Meligrana, S., & Xu, M. (2020). A shared everyday ethic of public sociability: Outdoor public ice rinks as spaces for encounter. Urban Planning, 5(4), 143-154.
    

20. Karki, T. K. (2015). Mandatory versus incentive-based state zoning reform policies for affordable housing in the United States: a comparative assessment. Housing Policy Debate, 25(2), 234-262.
    

21. Nesterova, M., Portera, A., & Milani, M. (2022). Diversity and intercultural competence for sustainable community development. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 8(5), 127-138.
    

22. Oldenburg, R. (1997). Our vanishing third places. Planning commissioners journal, 25(4), 6-10.
    

23. Ouf, A. S. E.-D., & El-Zafarany, N. A. (2018). Diversity and inclusion in the public space as aspects of happiness and wellbeing. Journal of Urban Research, 28(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.21608/jur.2018.88384
    

24. Pachana, N. A., & Wuthrich, V. M. (2021). Social inclusion and isolation: research for the post-COVID era and beyond. Clinical Gerontologist, 44(4), 355-358.
    

25. Pacific Northern Academy. (2021, November 1). Play is the work of childhood [Blog post]. Pacific Northern Academy. Retrieved July 21, 2025, from https://pacificnorthern.org/play-is-the-work-of-childhood-2/
    

26. Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243–269.
    

27. Peterson, M. (2016). Living with difference in hyper-diverse areas: how important are encounters in semi-public spaces? Social & Cultural Geography, 18(8), 1067–1085. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1210667
    

28. Qian, Y., & Wan, X. (2025). Co-experiencing with AI: Effects on Social Bonding and Empathy in Human-AI Relationships. Technology in Society, 103009.
    

29. Uslaner, E. M. (2009). Trust, diversity, and segregation. Diversity, and Segregation (December 15, 2009).
    

30. Wessendorf, S. (2014). "Being open, but sometimes closed": Conviviality in a super-diverse London neighbourhood. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549413510415
    

31. Zarocostas, J. (2020). How to fight an infodemic. The lancet, 395(10225), 676.