Failing at the basics: disabled university students’ views on enhancing classroom inclusion

ABSTRACT

Since the beginning of higher education, universities have remained largely closed off spaces for disabled students. This paper examines how, and why, it has largely been in the last fifty years that these students have slowly been able to enter universities as the sector has made incremental improvements to enable the entry of students from different disability backgrounds. The paper aims to assess the positive steps universities have taken towards more inclusive practices for disabled students, while also using data sourced from a survey of disabled students studying in the Global North to consider what actions might increase equitable practices in university classrooms. Disabled students highlight that for all of the advances and support they receive, so often it is the fundamental elements of classroom inclusion that are still being overlooked, and subsequently, are creating barriers in even the earliest steps into their university careers.

KEYWORDS:

• Marginalisation
• disability
• higher education
• support

Introduction

Currently around 10% of higher education students identify as having a disability. This number varies from as low as 7% in some nations to over 15% in others, and it is crucial to note that the total number of disabled students is increasing globally at a rate of approximately 10% per annum (Peruzzo, 2022). This growth in inclusion must also be considered in context as it was not until the 1980s that the number of students with disabilities regularly began to be mentioned in university reports, or became the topic of academic research by scholars seeking out ways to improve the sector (Heffernan, 2021; Leach, 2013). This paper first examines the history of disability in university classrooms to demonstrate that how the university came to understand students with different abilities is not a linear progression. This work explores the historical context of why and how some disabilities were supported and studied much sooner than others, which does make a difference today in how barriers are being removed for different students with different disabilities. Nonetheless, for all of the advances that have been made, this paper argues that the basic elements of disability inclusion – some of which have been part of higher education for more than five decades – continue to rarely be successfully achieved, which is detrimental to students, and lessens the impact of more advanced efforts to be inclusive of disabled students (Arduin, 2015).

These assessments are necessary as research makes clear that providing the support to allow disabled students into the classroom is only the first step; inclusion into the classroom does not mean equity has been achieved. Studies highlight that students with disabilities are not receiving the same grades as their peers, and are not completing courses at the same rate (Rowan, 2019). However, this also means that disabled students are graduating with fewer employment opportunities, are entering full-time employment at lower rates, and subsequently are also receiving lower working incomes as a result of their university education (Heffernan, 2022b; Rowan, 2019). These circumstances are particularly detrimental to disabled people when research points to the importance of higher education for disabled people (and indeed, most people from marginalised groups), because we know it leads to a working-life of more secure employment and higher salaries, which results in increased financial, housing, health, and family security (Bell, 2016; Keddie, 2012): factors disabled people are entitled to at the same level as their peers.

This paper investigates the academic experiences of 277 disabled students via the data sourced from an international survey to examine what support has helped them achieve their academic goals, what support was missing, and what could be done to improve their success. The data informs university administrators of best practice policies to provide support to their increasing numbers of disabled students. This paper thus shifts higher education disability research from its current position of asking ‘what is happening to disabled students?’ (Connell, 2019), to ‘why is it happening?’ and ‘what can we do to improve the situation?’

This paper’s author is a blind, white, middle-class, heterosexual male. The author is aware that they only faced one ‘closed gate’ to acceptance into the academy and that their position as a blind academic is an influential factor in how they interpret what is taking place in universities. They now research to ensure all the once closed gates to higher education are open for marginalised academics to enter and succeed in the sector.

Their research is nonetheless shaped by the literature and gaps in the field, with several studies indicating that research on disability in higher education does not align adequately with the increasing numbers of disabled students and staff entering universities. Despite the growing presence of disabled individuals in classrooms and the rise in research on student success, disability often receives insufficient consideration in these studies (Kimball & Thoma, 2019). While this trend in research has profound implications for understanding the experiences and challenges of disabled individuals in universities, as well as identifying effective support strategies, it should not come as a surprise. Research on marginalised students in academia remains significantly underrepresented, leading to difficulties in data collection, smaller sample sizes compared to non-marginalised groups, and challenges in getting comparative studies through the peer-review process and into publication (Heffernan, 2023b; Hendrix, 1998).

The scarcity of research even in the twenty-first century has notable consequences for the experiences of disabled individuals as they enter the university setting. Ryan (2011) raises the crucial question of what disabled students truly gain access to when they enter the academy. While removing or reducing barriers to access is essential, the value of such efforts comes into question if systemic obstacles that hinder equality in student success persist within the university environment.

Recognising the necessity of focusing on disabled individuals once they have entered the academic realm is an acknowledged and growing factor as research in this area expands. However, researchers acknowledge the difficulty of this task. Kioko and Makoelle (2014) advocate for fostering discussions between disabled students and researchers to understand the challenges they face and their needs. Often, universities fall short in areas in which they believe they are succeeding, which emphasises the importance of this research in bridging the gap through open dialogue.

In recent years, understanding the appropriate support required and involving the entire university community has played a significant role in shaping disability research. Researchers emphasise the identification and implementation of proper support mechanisms to create an inclusive academic community that caters to diverse needs. The goal is to eliminate barriers comprehensively, ensuring that the academy offers equal opportunities for everyone to excel (Ehlinger & Ropers, 2020).

Disability

A starting point of this paper must be to reiterate how diverse disability can be, and why, from the onset, it is important to highlight that one word is covering a wide array of different abilities, needs, and subsequently, responses. Or, as Adams et al. (2015, p. 5) suggest, ‘disability encompasses a broad range of bodily, cognitive, and sensory differences and capacities’, and because of this, the definitions people attribute to disability, or aspects of disability, are not set, can change, and can be contradictory. Therefore, what we are left with are disabled people with very specific needs, and a society with a floating, almost ever-changing, understanding and perception of what disability can involve (Heffernan, 2022b).

As a disabled researcher, I begin this work from the same starting point as many of my contemporaries and view disability as the consequence of society forming barriers that ostracise disabled people. It is these barriers that have stopped or slowed the acceptance of disabled people into higher education – it is not the differences resulting from disability that has lowered levels of higher education participation or academic ‘success’. These barriers can be physical, such as making spaces difficult to access for people with direct and indirect issues around mobility or sensory difficulties. Yet they can also be attitudes-based such as perceptions towards people who are neurodivergent, or these attitudes can be directed towards peoples’ understanding of what a disabled student can achieve, or how their success will be facilitated (Baines, 2014).

In keeping with the notion that it is these barriers that prevent success, and not abilities, this paper uses the language suggestions of the social model of disability, which recommends the term ‘disabled people’ or ‘disabled students’ rather than, for example, ‘students with a disability’. This wording is selected because the disability is not an appendage to who someone is, they remain the same and it is only because of the social constructs that any reference to disability must be made (Goodley, 2001).

Goodley also provides the most apt definition of how this paper understands ‘disability. This paper thus presents an inclusive and culturally aware epistemology that encompasses socio-political, historical, and cultural aspects which enables further theoretical advancements. One such progression could involve the incorporation of poststructuralist concepts that question societal and individual distinctions, thereby creating opportunities to reframe assumed ‘natural’ elements through cultural lenses. However, any theoretical exploration within these domains must originate from a fundamentally social and political standpoint (Corker & French, 1998; Shakespeare, 1996).

Impairment is subsequently understood to be a product of social factors rather than isolated individual pathologies. Sociologically imaginative approaches encompass the understanding of distributed competence, ability, intelligence, capacity, and alternative forms of expression. A profound awareness of the social nature inherent in all human beings and their abilities must be present, accompanied by a critical perspective towards the discursive and material constructions of acceptance (Goodley, 2001).

Therefore, while disability remains a social problem to be eradicated by societal change (through reconstruction of current systems and by deconstruction through revolutionising direct action), the objective now is to transition to inclusive social theories encompassing disability and impairment (Heffernan, 2023a).

Methods

This paper begins with an historical analysis of access to higher education for disabled students. This examination both frames where disability research currently sits regarding student access, and how the present situation fits within more than five decades of major change for disabled students in the higher education sector.

The paper uses qualitative data collection and analysis methods as these allow it to take a systematic approach to the human element and lived experiences (Creswell, 2013) of the participants’ history with support within the university sector. As Shulman (1988) highlighted almost four decades ago, research design and methods must be selected as a matter of which methods will aid in best answering the research questions, and subsequently Denzin and Lincoln (2011) added that it is the researcher’s duty to consider the breadth of research design options that they have available to them.

In this paper, the primary research questions are:

RQ1:

What are the major historical points in disabled student access to higher education since the latter half of the twentieth century?

RQ2:

What are the experiences of current disabled students in the Global North?

RQ3:

What area must be examined to improve access, equity in the system, and subsequently results, moving forward?

Answering the research questions begins with the historical examination and analysis of current literature to address RQ1 and partly investigate RQ2, while the second part of the paper aids in answering RQ2 and RQ3 and is based on data gathered from a global survey of disabled students.

The data collection process of the survey began after institutional ethical approval was gained, and initially relied on calls for participation of disabled students via the researcher’s social media accounts, before relying on information and links being further spread by participants and other parties. While there are potential drawbacks with recruiting participants via these methods, as some have noted (Kosinski et al., 2015), recruitment using social media is a method that can source participant numbers that would otherwise be difficult to source without significant funds, time, and resources. It is also a method that the researcher has had success using in previous studies (Heffernan, 2020, 2023b). In this study, online recruitment led to 277 participants from the Global North completing the survey. This area was selected as the Global North is where institutions have been attempting to solve the many issues around disability support discussed in this paper since the massification of higher education from the 1960s onwards. Nonetheless, as Fan et al. (2019) have noted, the current state of higher education inclusion and diversity means it is difficult for researchers to source data from a marginalised population (in this case disability) when that group comprises only a small percentage of the university sector’s total population. However, that a marginalised group (regardless of sample size) is largely unanimous in their views towards university policy and practice is not unexpected in research surrounding marginalisation in a sector built on privilege (Heffernan, 2022b; DiPietro & Faye, 2005; Hamermesh & Parker, 2005).

The survey consisted of fifteen questions in total, and was divided into subsections including:

• Five demographic questions related to institution location, faculty, types of disability.

• Five short answer questions to determine if support was provided and if it was adequate.

• Five open ended questions relating to ‘Why the support offered did/did not work?’ ‘What (if at all) could the institution have done to support you more?’ ‘Did you have to take any steps to support yourself?’

The researcher acknowledges that there are potential issues with using open-ended questions. including participants not understanding the question, or participants answering questions in ways they anticipate the researcher to be looking for (Punch, 2013). However, open-ended questions have been selected as they are an effective way of gaining information relating to lived experiences in a survey format, and potential issues with open-ended questions are largely eliminated when the questions relate to a dedicated topic (Punch, 2013), such as in this study where questions relate to institutional support.

Braun and Clarke’s (2006) multi-stage thematic analysis was selected to analyse the data. Thematic analysis was selected because, when investigating qualitative data, this method provides a system whereby patterns and statistical information can be sourced from participants’ experiences (Clarke & Braun, 2017). In the first phase of analysis, familiarisation with the data was developed by reviewing all survey responses via conducting multiple in-depth readings with a particular focus on the response to questions relating to ‘what support was provided and was it adequate?’, and ‘what support would be/would have been beneficial to you?’. In the second phase, initial codes were developed to categorise key and recurring concepts which primarily meant coding responses into those who felt they were supported, and those who felt they were not. In the third phase, the main themes were developed by collating the coded lines and/or paragraphs in an additional in-depth read of the data. In the fourth phase, the final codes were extracted for the purpose of this paper.

The new codes included such categories as ‘was not supported at all’, ‘was supported but it was not adequate’, ‘was supported but more could have been done’, and ‘was supported and no extra help could have been provided’. At the same time, codes were also established for the questions relating to ‘what support worked?’, and ‘what else could the university have done to support you?’. Finally, the relevant codes were re-organised and put into the corresponding themes. The data generated is significant in volume, but for the purpose of this paper, primarily the themes relating to the basic first steps institutions should be taking to support their disabled students is discussed in detail.

The study and paper face some limitations in terms of data collection and generalisability, but these do not alter the paper’s primary purpose. In terms of data collection, the study may be international, but it is restricted to participants from the Global North as this is a paper about failing at the basics. The paper largely discusses issues disabled students face, and have faced for decades, since the massification of higher education which took place in the Global North. However, the paper’s findings will provide a foundation for intersectionality researchers, or those from the Global South, to assess if the basics of disability support are being met in their own regions. For the same reason, the paper may only sample a relatively small number of participants, but the paper’s point is that universities are continuing to fail at the basics of disability support.

Bourdieu, access, starting points, and the disability tax

This work builds on Bourdieu’s notions of access to higher education, starting points, and what it means to not be from a privileged background in a privileged setting like higher education; which is why this paper also makes a contribution to intersectionality studies even though it is focused on disability (Harpur et al., 2023; Nichols & Stahl, 2019). At the same time, the paper also continues the author’s work with Bourdieu to understand the intricacies of disability in higher education.

Bourdieu’s views on higher education are insightful because he was an academic working in universities who dealt with bureaucracy, administration, students, and faculty, and he wrote extensively about what his theories looked like in a higher education setting (Bourdieu, 1988). What Bourdieu saw and understood to be happening up until his death in the early-2000s is nonetheless relevant today (Grenfell & James, 1998). Primarily, Bourdieu argued two key points that shape this paper’s understanding of disability in higher education. The first is that access to higher education is historically, and into the twenty-first century, most often defined by privilege. The most common access to higher education is for those from privileged backgrounds in terms of wealth, and who have a history of family members attending universities. More specifically, this means access for those who are not from marginalised backgrounds is virtually assumed because it is what is expected of them and is where they will fit (Bourdieu, 1977; Webb et al., 2002). For anyone from a disability background, they already face a hurdle in gaining admission (as does anyone from a marginalised background, and these issues amplify if someone is from multiple marginalised backgrounds (Bourdieu, 2005).

Bourdieu’s second point is that even if a disabled student gains access to higher education, they are not starting at the same level as their peers, they are behind. Privileged students walk into a privileged space and feel at home; they have shared life experiences and interests, as do the other privileged students who fill the classroom, and as often do the privileged lecturers and tutors who lead and facilitate their learning, because universities are privileged spaces (Bourdieu, 1988; Grenfell, 2014). For a disabled student, that instant connection is often not present and, regardless of whether the connections are made almost instantly, or over a longer period, no matter when the disabled student gains the same level of acceptance in the class that their peers experienced, they are still behind because while they caught up, the privileged groups only formed stronger bonds (Heffernan, 2022a). The implications of this circumstance are different in each field depending on types of assessment and how much classroom networks can be leveraged into academic and post-graduation success. Nevertheless, Bourdieu recognised that while disabled students might be allowed into higher education, they were not equal with their peers (Bourdieu, 2005).

What disabled students are left with is a disability tax that for most can never be overcome in the current higher education system. They will always have to work harder than their privileged peers to be accepted, their work will always have to be of a higher quality to gain the same level of recognition, and success will be achieved only by overcoming greater barriers (Heffernan, 2023a). It is against this backdrop, where universities are privileged settings for privileged people, that this paper examines what institutions are doing to lower and eliminate these barriers. Bourdieu knew that letting disabled people onto the field of higher education was only the first step because the field is still full of obstacles that only the disabled students will have to overcome (Schirato & Roberts, 2018).

Wider student access to higher education

Access to higher education for disabled students throughout most of the Westernised higher education system has been largely impossible until very recently. As higher education began as a very small number of institutions created largely for the benefit of society’s elite (Heffernan, 2022b). Today, many institutions proudly declare on their websites and marketing material how early they accepted women students as an example of their inclusive histories. However, while accepting women students was a positive move, allowing a small number of women students into a male-dominated classroom does not equate to gender equity (Forsyth, 2014). This point is important to consider as a precursor to a discussion around access to higher education for disabled students. It is crucial to remember that the inclusion of one student, with one type of disability in wider society’s view, into a university classroom may signify the beginning of disabled students having access to a university education. However, this circumstance does not signify the beginning of disabled students having equitable experiences or opportunities compared to their peers.

The history of disability inclusion in higher education largely begins following the significant expansion of the university system in the 1960s and 1970s. This period saw immense growth in the higher education sector as multiple factors came together to increase the appeal of university education and research to governments and society (Esson & Ertl, 2016). As the children of the post-WWII generation reached post-compulsory schooling age, their parents wanted their children to have as many options available to them as possible, one of which was university study. Secondly, many occupations had increasingly become professionalised and a component of this came from a university degree. For example, teaching colleges began to be phased out during this period as aspiring teachers instead enrolled in Bachelor of Education courses. Third, governments saw the advantage in turning higher education from something only achievable by the elite few, to something more readily accessible for the benefit of national financial growth and security (Forsyth, 2014).

This faith, and subsequent growth, in higher education led to the small number of elite universities being joined by a much wider network of institutions that covered different locations, regional areas, and, crucially to this discussion, different members of society. It was this shift that saw higher education turn from a level of education restricted to a very white, upper-middle class portion of society that was less than 10% of high school graduates, to today where we see more than 30%, and a much more diverse 30%, of the population attending university across most of the Westernised world (Olssen & Peter, 2005; Polesel, 2018). While this paper primarily addresses disability within the context of higher education, it is important to emphasise that the growth of higher education has played a significant role in facilitating access for marginalised communities. Over the past sixty years, individuals who have been marginalised based on their sex, gender, sexual identity, social class, and disability have encountered various obstacles in their pursuit of a place in academia (Bourdieu, 1988). Recognising the intersectionality of these shared challenges and unique differences is crucial for understanding the inclusion and advancement of marginalised communities in higher education (Heffernan, 2023a). Therefore, the objective of this paper is to offer a pertinent analysis of the disability perspective within the realm of higher education.

Disability in higher education

It was against this backdrop that the inclusion of disabled students turned from one of isolated examples, to universities actively making choices to aid in including disabled students into the classroom. As we look at the beginning of disabled students’ entering higher education, we see people entering the university who only faced one ‘closed gate’ to enter the ‘field’ of the classroom [as Bourdieu (1977, 1988) would have told us]. That is to say, the first disabled students to enter the university were those who largely met every other criterion of entry (primarily being white, male, and middle-class with financial capacity) but had one hurdle to overcome to be equal to their peers and that hurdle was a disability. This is a significant point because it makes clear that in the beginning universities were not taking highly equitable steps to enable the admittance of disabled students. More often than not, they were admitting middle-class white students who also had a disability (Oliver & Barnes, 2010).

There were thus clear trends in which disabled students were first admitted to universities. Perhaps the first disability group to enter the university in high numbers were those impacted by physical mobility (rather than sensory mobility) and access issues. Mobility issues in the university has a history that is difficult to trace because people who may have had physical mobility issues in some cases were able to move around somewhat freely and thus their access did not become an issue of discussion, historical note, or research. Nonetheless, due to the influx and systems to support returning soldiers after the Second World War, physical mobility is again seen as a disability within the sector that can often be overcome through planning and the design of new buildings (Forsyth, 2014).

Disabled students who were marginalised by other aspects such as sensory or neurological factors have faced more difficult journeys into higher education, and researchers have known for decades that, while universities have approached inclusion and different disabilities from various perspectives, there has been no set path forward. Yet for students marginalised by mobility or sensory issues, plans have been in place since the beginning of their inclusion. Easily accessible rooms, ramps, and elevator access are the fundamental needs for students marginalised by mobility, while recording (on tape in the beginning) notes from lecturers, or human assistance, has always been the basis for inclusion of those facing sensory barriers (Heffernan, 2022b). These are the very basic requirements that facilitate classroom inclusion. If a student cannot get to their class freely, or gain access to the information being delivered in a satisfactory manner, every other attempt at inclusion becomes less meaningful. Meekosha et al. (1991) established more than thirty years ago that disabled students were entering higher education institutions at ever-increasing rates. Nonetheless, student success, let alone equality, was not guaranteed. It was often the case of disabled students waiting for universities to catch up, provide support, and meet the needs of the students they were accepting into their programmes.

The result of this research in the twenty-first century is that scholars and universities have come to realise the importance of listening to disabled students; a clear indication that providing widespread assistance policies to encompass large groups of disabled students does not always provide the desired results.

Support for disabled students

This section addresses the support disabled students have received, what has worked, what has not, and what methods they have employed to facilitate their own success. As was mentioned in the Methods section, this data was generated from a survey conducted in late-2022, and as such, the repercussions of the Covid-19 pandemic and learning from home had a significant influence on participants’ answers and thoughts. This is not a paper or study about Covid-19, but the temporary shift from on-campus to online learning did provide many disabled people with new experiences of inclusion. The number of students differs from one location to another, and indeed one university to another, but generally speaking, the participants who completed the survey commented regularly on what they experienced in learning from home.

The impact Covid-19 and learning from home had on some disabled students is perhaps most clear in terms of people marginalised by mobility who saw the advantages of not being required to contend with university decisions that did not take into account those with disabilities. Many people from this category echoed Participant #34’s experience with on-campus life:

I think everywhere in my uni is accessible by wheelchair. The problem is that sometimes the lift or ramp I need to go even up or down one floor can be several buildings away. This doesn’t bother me, what bothers me is that it makes me late. And no one cares or has ever said anything, but it’s not great being known as the person who’s late all the time.

Participant #315, a blind student, had a slightly different experience:

They keep changing the class locations. Eight weeks of the same class but it’s in three different rooms. Not doing that would make my life much easier!

At the same time, Participant #164, who uses a mobility device, declared that:

My university is in a city, but it’s not centrally located and this means having to rely on public transport. I would never say anything because I know lots of people without a disability still have to rely on public transport, but it is like the university does not care. People schedule early classes, late classes, night classes, weekend classes with no regard for how long it will take me or others to get to or from campus.

Participant #164 highlighted another point shared by many who identified having mobility issues when they said that ‘It is also not always safe. Some of the most dangerous situations I’ve found myself in have been because of commuting’.

What links the above views and the many sentiments they echo from the study’s other participants is that the participants knew there were two solutions to their issues: 1) There was the solution where the university actively addressed the issue. Classes could be held in the same location, this location could be selected to be in an accessible classroom, and a culture could be started where classes/meetings finished (for example) ten minutes before the hour to allow people to get to their next engagement; 2) learning from home was more routinely integrated into university life. Participants regularly spoke of this enabling them to be a larger part of the classroom environment without any additional factors indicating their disability.

As Participant #203 (who specified a mobility issue) declared in a statement that reflects the views of many other participants:

In the past, before Covid, I have learnt from home. I got a student support allowance to do that. However, pre-Covid that meant everyone else would be in a room, and I would be the one on Zoom. There were always technical issues, people didn’t like using Zoom. I was part of the room, but I also wasn’t part of the class. That all changed after Covid. We were all on Zoom, I was part of the room to a higher degree than I’d ever been before. We’re back on campus now but the focus has changed. I am still at home most days, but at this point, so are many others. It’s just standard that 50 percent or more of a class will be people on Zoom.

Many students noted the same impact of Covid-19 and the use of online classes. Pre-Covid-19, online classes were seen by the participants as something reserved for special circumstances, and rather than inclusion, they usually only highlighted differences. As Covid-19 forced multiple years of online study for many people in the higher education sector, online study created a more level playing field that offers insights into how many people would like to move forward.

Away from Covid-19, many disabled students feel that they are both not being heard, understood, or taken seriously due to their minority status. A common theme amongst student responses from participants who identified neurological conditions reflected that of Participant #71:

Classes are designed to serve the majority, not people who think differently. I understand why that is the case, and why it has to be the case because that’s just how society works. What matters though is what support is coming after that. Will there be any support? Will the support be meaningless? All I really need is time. Five minutes after class one on one [with the lecturer] to make sure I understand everything right and can clarify the things I need to. I just don’t want to do that amongst 20 other students.

Participant #71’s ideas pair with many of the disabled students identifying sensory issues (primarily blindness or deafness) who indicated not needing much support, but needing a small amount of support to be in place. Participant #28 (a blind student) noted that:

Uni has a great system where someone shares their notes to me, it comes via the support office in a Word document. This is fantastic when they arrive on time and are detailed enough. The problem is there’s no quality assurance. I can’t start tutorial activities or assessment without those notes, and the notes need to be good enough to make sense and pair with the PowerPoint, and be on time. When that doesn’t happen I’m at an instant disadvantage but all the office can do is say sorry.

To extend on this issue, Participant #106 noted:

What I need is the exact slides and the recording. Most of the time I get that, but anything less than that causes troubles. If the slides are different to what was in the lecture, even when there’s more information in the notes, then it doesn’t fit. […] I need the slides, the recording and my notes. That’s what I need. Most of the time that happens, but when it doesn’t, it’s a big problem.

Participant #106 concluded ‘You can’t support people some of the time’, and this was a strong sentiment throughout the data. Students noted their success being tied to the quality of slides/recordings and upload habits of their lecturers. Many of the participants thus saw the merit in elements of what most universities were trying to achieve, but it was not consistent, and ensuring these elements were clearly a different priority to different universities, faculties, and lecturers.

Discussion

We know most of what has occurred to make higher education a more inclusive place for disabled students has happened in recent decades, but even these systems and support processes need improvement.

RQ1 queried what the major historical points were for disabled students in higher education. The first point was mass market higher education and the subsequent increase in disabled students through the late-1970s and early-1980s. However, we know that in the beginning that meant people who fit the social mould of what a university student member should be (Bourdieu, 1988), except for their disability. Thus, in most cases, the widespread inclusion of disabled students meant the inclusion of middle-class white people with a disability that was mobility, or sometimes sensory, related. Over the next fifty years, a lot slowly changed as universities became more inclusive places and people with more challenging or multiple disabilities were invited into classrooms.

Being allowed into classrooms does not, however, mean equity has been reached. In answer to RQ2 and questioning what higher education looks like for disabled students today, participants spoke regularly of never being criticised or having their abilities questioned, but they viewed themselves as not being part of the class or faculty. They viewed themselves as an appendage. Many of these concerns appear to be somewhat alleviated by Covid-19’s consequence of learning at home. In 2023, online learning seems to be an option for many which means travel and room access is less of a concern for some, and lectures, slides, and recordings are presented online where students are more likely to have access to computers and systems that they are familiar with, and they are part of a class where some or all students are learning online.

It is necessary to consider that while most participants called for online learning to remain the standard, they knew that as ‘living with Covid’ becomes a phrase and mentality many governments are trying to live with (if they acknowledge Covid-19 at all), most disabled students hope learning options for all remain available. Disabled students do not want to be the only students learning online if universities return fully face-to-face. To do so makes them stand out, and as they clearly state, being a minority in the class inevitably leads to them often being an afterthought, a factor that only further emphasises Bourdieu’s point of disabled people always being behind their privileged peers (Bourdieu, 1988). Similarly, universities forcing disabled students online so that the institution does not have to contend with solutions for mobility issues, or deal with fewer issues around slides and notes for students marginalised by sensory issues, is also not the answer and is another form of discrimination against the disabled population. Yet, in a study involving 277 participants, over 10% of respondents indicated being pressured or forced to enrol online.

Recommendations

RQ3 queried what must happen as we move forward, and again participants spoke of online learning becoming a more permanent option. Additionally, in instances of online and on-campus learning, it was common that students had positive experiences, and what they hoped for most was that the elements that created these positive experiences increased, for example lecture slides, materials, and class recordings being detailed and made available quickly. For people using note-taking or slide-summary services, the value of these is largely defined by detail, quality, and being provided in a timely manner. For on-campus students, they regularly spoke of needing classes to be in the most easily accessible rooms (in an environment where most rooms are accessible, some are more accessible than others), and in the same location for each class due to the increased ease routines can make for people with mobility or sensory issues. Yet it cannot be denied that these basic factors are elements that students need, and most universities tried to provide, decades ago. That these basic elements remain problematic is a fundamental hurdle to disability inclusion, and erodes the potential success of many advanced and new ideas around inclusion.

While the above is largely about the need for administrative processes to improve, students also spoke of the need for understanding and consultation. Students experiencing sensory and neuro differences routinely discussed the value of even a short conversation with their lecturers after class or in-between classes to clarify information and tasks. As an academic, I appreciate that this should not be gifted time by the teaching staff member, but considering the value disabled students place on it, factoring this into class timetables and workload allocations is potentially a very small item, with minimal cost to universities, for a significant increase in disabled students’ satisfaction and equity.

Conclusion

This paper set out to establish several points that all revolve around how we make universities more inclusive places not just for the almost ten per cent of disabled students who currently attend, but also for the growing rate of disabled students who enrol each year (Peruzzo, 2022). Higher education may have a history of attempting to be more inclusive, but we must also accept that the beginning of true inclusion did not begin until the mass market higher education system began, and university study became an option for those not explicitly privileged by gender, race, class, and ableness.

While higher education in the 2020s has taken great steps forward in enhancing inclusion of disabled students compared to even a decade ago, equity in outcomes is yet to be reached. The study this paper is designed around highlights that students are aware that their needs are not always being met. Perhaps more significantly though, the data generated by the students’ survey responses demonstrates just how minimal many of their recommendations are in terms of administrative difficulties. For the most part, what they are recommending is proper integration of online learning options, and a small number of administrative changes and streamlining processes around content delivery and support services. In many instances, these practices are already in place; they simply need to be refined and adhered to more closely. These may seem like the most basic of recommendations, and are tasks universities have been doing for decades; however, that these basic requirements are still not regularly being met in 2023 is a firm example of the sector’s wider approach of inviting disabled students into the classroom, but not always providing the support they need thereafter.

What this study demonstrates to university leaders is that you cannot have equity in outcomes if you do not have equity in the classroom. This is what disabled students are asking for and is what I wish I had experienced as a disabled university student. Disabled students do not want to be an appendage to the class, or an after-thought (to quote their own words), they want to be integrated into the classroom in a way that removes the barriers from preventing them from having a similar place of inclusion compared to their peers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

No funding is connected to this paper.

Notes on contributors

Troy Heffernan

Troy Heffernan is a Fulbright Scholar and Senior Lecturer at the University of Manchester’s Institute of Education. As a sociologist of higher education administration and equity, his work examines issues such as those related to precarious employment, the implication of academic networks, the factors involved in hiring and promotional decisions, and how universities define success for their staff in a neoliberal age. Dr Heffernan’s research objective is to support universities as their role in the community continues to grow, and help ensure that diverse and marginalised groups are represented and treated equitably throughout the sector. His work has received numerous awards for research excellence, he regularly participates in invited speaking and keynote engagements, and he consults with universities around the world to help improve their policies and practices regarding the development and support of their marginalised staff and students.