Are assessment accommodations cheating? A critical policy analysis

Figures & data

Table 1. The document dataset.

University	Documents
University of Alberta	Discrimination, Harassment and Duty to Accommodate PolicyPolicy for Students with DisabilitiesWeb pages and forms
University of Calgary	Student Accommodation PolicyWeb pages and forms
Dalhousie University	Policy for the Scheduling of Courses/ExaminationsStudent Accommodation PolicyWeb pages and forms
University of Manitoba	Student Accessibility PolicyWeb pages and forms
McGill University	University Student Assessment PolicyPolicy Concerning the Rights of Students with DisabilitiesWeb pages and forms
McMaster University	Academic Accommodation of Students with DisabilitiesGuidelines for the Provision of Documentation for Students with DisabilitiesWeb pages and forms
University of Ottawa	Academic Regulation A-6Web pages and forms
Queen’s University	Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities PolicyQueen’s Student Accessibility Services (QSAS) Intake GuideWeb pages and forms
University of Saskatchewan	Duty to AccommodateWeb pages and forms
University of Toronto	Statement of Commitment Regarding Persons with DisabilitiesOffice of the Vice-Provost: Academic AccommodationsStudent Guide 2022–2023Web pages and forms
University of British Columbia	Accommodation for Students with DisabilitiesWeb pages and forms
University of Waterloo	Student Academic Accommodation GuidelinesWeb pages and forms
Western University	Policy on Academic Accommodation for Students with DisabilitiesWeb pages and forms

Table 2. The WPR approach to policy analysis in our context of assessment accommodations.

	Relevance to our study
Question 1: What’s the problem represented to be in a specific policy or policies?	We investigate how potential cheating is presented as a problem with respect to students with disabilities.
Question 2: What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions (conceptual logics) underlie this representation of the ‘problem’ (problem representation)?	We analyse the discursive logics that enable this problem representation to occur. We analyse the deep-seated conceptualisations of both assessment and disability.
Question 4: What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be conceptualised differently?	We discuss how cheating is presented as a major issue to be prevented and mitigated, whereas discrimination or the inaccessibility of assessment is not. A critical silence is located in discussing the assessment from the viewpoint of assessment integrity.
Question 5: What effects (discursive, subjectification, lived) are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?	We focus on subjectification: how students with disabilities are portrayed as potential cheaters.