Studying Disability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Requesting Accommodation in Higher Education

Abstract

Including students with disabilities in higher education is a global political objective and is considered a human right. However, many students do not feel included and hesitate to ask for the help they need to succeed in their education. This study aims to investigate the processes of requesting accommodation for students with disabilities in higher education from the perspectives of both students and support providers. Six co-creation workshops were held, with a total of 46 participants from various backgrounds relevant to exploring pathways for students with disabilities in higher education and into the workforce. The audio recordings of the workshops were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify and explore processes. Three interconnected processes were identified: determining whether to disclose, asking for accommodations, and studying disability. The analysis showed that these processes could be time-consuming and riddled with barriers, and they did not always result in granted accommodations. Some students ended up using their study time to research their disability and potential accommodations instead of studying their subject matter. To eliminate barriers and promote disclosure, universities should ensure a universally designed education and that staff have the necessary knowledge to assist students in obtaining accommodations.

1. Introduction

Including students with disabilities (SwD) is a global political objective. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been signed by 164 countries or regional integration organizations (United Nations 2006). The goal of including SwD in higher education is essential for several reasons. One of the reasons is the positive impact higher education can have on individuals. Article 24 of the CRPD mandates that all nations ensure an inclusive education system at all levels so that people with disabilities can reach their full potential and participate in a free society (United Nations 2006).

Attending university can be an enriching experience for individuals with disabilities (Dangoisse et al. 2020). However, their participation can also enrich the university since incorporating diversity into the teaching environment can positively impact the employees’ professional and personal growth (Moriña et al. 2020). Moreover, the participation of individuals with disabilities is also crucial for society in a broader context. Many countries, including Norway (where this study took place), are grappling with an aging population. While people live longer (Clarsen et al. 2022; Kyu et al. 2018), many of those additional years are spent in poor health (Kyu et al. 2018). This has led to an increased demand for health and social services. Furthermore, in many countries, fewer children are being born (Hellstrand et al. 2021). To sustain the welfare state and meet rising needs, maximizing workforce participation is crucial (Benelli et al. 2023; Blix and Ågotnes 2023).

Many individuals with disabilities aspire to work and contribute to society. They seek to avoid isolation and gain financial security, structure, and independence (Carmichael and Clarke 2022; de Beer et al. 2023). Some individuals with disabilities find attending higher education necessary for future employment (Accardo et al. 2019; de Beer et al. 2023). Higher education is crucial for labor market inclusion (Hyggen et al. 2018) and almost three times as necessary for individuals with disabilities to secure a job than for non-disabled individuals (Ballo 2020). These students wish to excel and succeed in higher education (Accardo et al. 2019; de Beer et al. 2023; Getzel and Thoma 2008; Osborne 2019), but unfortunately, many of them drop out (Carroll et al. 2020; Dong and Lucas 2016; Jeannis et al. 2020).

For these reasons, it is essential to remove barriers and create conditions that promote academic success for SwD. Early access to appropriate accommodations can significantly improve academic outcomes (Blasey et al. 2023; Dong and Lucas 2016; Kim and Lee 2016). However, the provision of accommodations in higher education is based on complex judgments that may produce inconsistent outcomes (Ristad et al. 2024). Some lecturers may not view disability as a part of diversity (Aquino 2022). Some students feel supported, while others do not receive the support they need (de Beer et al. 2023; Brandt 2011; De Los Santos et al. 2019; Edwards et al. 2022; Jeannis et al. 2020; Magnus and Tøssebro 2014; Miller et al. 2009).

Researchers have reported that certain students delay contacting their university to request accommodations (Blasey et al. 2023; Dollinger et al. 2023; Dong and Lucas 2016; Grimes et al. 2019). Additionally, some students choose not to seek any accommodation for their disability at all (De Los Santos et al. 2019; Dollinger et al. 2023; Grimes et al. 2019; Jacklin 2011; Miller et al. 2009). These findings highlight the need to closely examine the processes that occur when SwD require accommodations at the university.

A study of processes involves analyzing how people continually adjust their interactions and actions in response to changing conditions (Corbin and Strauss 2015). To gain a comprehensive understanding of the conditions for the processes, it is necessary to consider the viewpoints of all stakeholders involved, including the students and those who assist them in obtaining or providing accommodations.

Therefore, this study aims to investigate the accommodation request processes for students with disabilities from their perspective and that of support providers.

Exploring the Views of Multiple Stakeholders

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the accommodation processes for students with disabilities, a qualitative approach from a constructivist perspective was utilized. According to constructivism’s epistemology, people create meaning by interacting with the world around them (Crotty 1998). This implies that an individual assigns meaning to a phenomenon based on their personal experiences and perspectives rather than the meaning being inherent in the phenomenon. Consequently, the same phenomenon can have different meanings for different individuals (Crotty 1998). Constructivist inquiry examines how experience is constructed through exploring multiple perspectives, limitations, and connections. (Charmaz 2014). When several people engage in a discussion, they can contextualize their statements by exchanging and merging viewpoints, experiences, and knowledge (van Veen et al. 2013). Knowledge constructed in this way is regarded as more socially robust knowledge that can be valid outside the research setting (Gibbons 1999; Nowotny 2003). Different groups, such as students, lecturers, administrative staff, and other professionals, may have varying opinions and perspectives on the processes related to SwD in higher education (Claiborne et al. 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that several researchers have suggested that collaboration among key stakeholders can provide new and valuable insights into the journey of these students (Goodall et al. 2022; Moriña and Orozco 2021; Nieminen 2023).

To promote collaboration, the present study used workshops named the Collaboration Forum. In these workshops, multiple stakeholders who played a crucial role in the journey of SwD through higher education and into employment gathered to share their views. This paper is based on data that pertains to the Collaboration Forum stakeholders’ views on the accommodation request processes for SwD. We will start the method description by providing an overview of the workshops, including stakeholders who participated and how the workshops were conducted. Moreover, we will explain the procedure of collecting and analyzing the data gathered during the workshops. To complement the descriptions of the procedure and its reasons in the present article, see Ristad et al. (2024).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Collaboration Forum and Its Participants

From December 2020 to June 2021, a project team consisting of six associate professors, two student representatives, two doctoral research fellows, and a master’s student planned and facilitated six Collaboration Forum workshops digitally via the video communication platform Zoom. The workshops aimed to explore the various pathways for SwD to enter the workforce through higher education. To ensure that the topics discussed were relevant and useful to stakeholders, each workshop’s participants suggested the topic for the next workshop, as well as the most appropriate participants to invite to shed light on the subject. A total of 46 participants, including individuals with key positions inside and outside the university, contributed their insights to the workshops. Table 1 provides an overview of the workshop topics in chronological order, the number of participants in each workshop, and their affiliation.

Table 1. Themes and numbers of participants in the Collaboration Forum and SwD’ discussion groups.

Themes	Participants
Establishing rapport	SwD’s discussion groups prior to the workshop: 2 groups, n = 11
	Collaboration Forum: n = 10 (2 SwD’s discussion groups representatives i.u., 1 disability office representative i.u., 1 lecturer i.u., 2 support providers of social services and labor o.u., 4 providers of services for lecturer support for universal design and accommodations i.u.)
Dissemination of information	SwD’s discussion groups prior to the workshop: 3 groups, n = 16
	Collaboration Forum: n = 14 (3 SwD’s discussion groups representatives i.u., 1 disability office representative i.u., 3 lecturers, 2 responsible for the dissemination of information i.u., 2 support providers of social services and labor o.u., 3 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations i.u.)
Learning situations	SwD’s discussion groups prior to the workshop: 3 groups, n = 15
	Collaboration Forum: n = 11 (3 SwD’s discussion groups representatives i.u., 1 educational development unit representative i.u., 3 lecturers i.u., 2 support providers of social services and labor o.u., 2 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations i.u.)
Transition to working life	SwD’s discussion groups prior to the workshop: 3 groups, n = 15
	Collaboration Forum: n = 21 (4 SwD’s discussion groups representatives i.u., 1 career advisor i.u., 1 university disability office representative i.u., 1 disability organization member o.u., 2 employees with impairment o.u., 1 employer/manager o.u., 2 facilitators for work-life inclusion o.u., 2 lecturers i.u., 1 practice supervisor o.u., 1 provider of accommodations and support equipment o.u., 2 support providers of social services and labor o.u., 3 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations i.u.)
Assessment and qualifying	SwD’s discussion groups prior to the workshop: 3 groups, n = 15
	Collaboration Forum: n = 20 (4 SwD’s discussion groups representatives i.u., 1 career advisor i.u, 1 disability office representative i.u., 1 disability organization member o.u., 1 employee with impairment o.u., 1 employer/manager o.u., 2 examination office representatives i.u., 2 lecturers i.u., 2 practice supervisors o.u., 1 suitability committee representative i.u., 1 provider of accommodations and support equipment o.u., 1 support provider of social services and labor o.u., 2 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations i.u.)
Attitudes and discrimination	SwD’s discussion groups prior to the workshop: 3 groups, n = 17
	Collaboration Forum: n = 26 (8 SwD’s discussion groups representatives i.u., 1 career advisor i.u., 1 disability office representative i.u., 1 disability organization member o.u., 1 employee with impairment o.u., 2 facilitators for work-life inclusion o.u., 2 lecturers i.u., 2 management representatives i.u., 1 practice supervisor o.u., 2 student politics representatives i.u., 1 provider of accommodations and support equipment o.u., 1 support provider of social services and labor o.u., 3 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations i.u.)

Note: Table 1 describes the themes of the SwD’s discussion groups and the Collaboration Forum in chronological order, the number of participants in the SwD’s discussion groups and the Collaboration Forum, and the affiliation or roles of the participants in the Collaboration Forum. SwD = students with disabilities, n = number of participants, i.u. = located inside the university, and o.u. = located outside of the university.

Table 1 also provides information on the number of participants in the discussion groups for SwD. These groups were created to get feedback from more students in the Collaboration Forum. The discussion groups were conducted before the Collaboration Forum workshops and had the same theme as the upcoming workshop. Recruitment for the discussion groups was conducted through the university’s communication platform and Facebook. Eleven undergraduate and seven postgraduate students with self-reported disabilities were divided into three discussion groups, and each group chose representatives who participated in the Collaboration Forum workshops. The representatives brought information and viewpoints from the students in the SwD’s discussion groups to the Collaboration Forum and vice versa. Table 2 displays the age and reported impairment of the students participating in SwD’s discussion groups.

Table 2. Demographics for the 18 individuals attending the students with disabilities’ discussion groups.

Sex and Age		Impairment Reported
Female	17	Chronic disease	6
Male	1	Mental health disorder	7
Age 20–25	8	Mobility impairment	1
Age 26–30	3	Neurological impairment	8
Age 31–47	7	Visual impairment	2

Note: Table 2 displays the number of participants categorized by gender, age, and self-reported impairment.

The Collaboration Forum workshop consisted of three parts: an introduction, discussions in breakout rooms, and a summary session in plenary. Each workshop lasted for 3.5 h. During the introduction, participants briefly presented themselves, followed by summaries of the SwD’s discussion group’s discussions given by their elected representatives. Selected stakeholders gave one or two rapid (approximately 10-min) lectures related to the workshop topic.

During the discussion part of the workshops, participants were intentionally divided into three to six breakout rooms on the Zoom platform. Each room consisted of a group of three to five professionals from various professions, fields, professions, and organizations, along with one or more students. The study’s project group members led the discussions in these breakout rooms, providing suggested questions but also incorporating relevant points made by participants.

Lastly, the breakout groups provided summaries in a plenary where the most significant viewpoints were highlighted. Unanswered questions were addressed, and recommendations for future workshops were made, including suggestions for participants and topics. This part of the workshop gave the attendees the opportunity to discuss and contemplate perspectives from the other breakout groups, which allowed them to gain a deeper understanding of the topics discussed.

2.2. Ethical Considerations

Before attending the workshop, all the participants were provided with detailed information about the research project and were required to give their written consent to participate. The Norwegian Centre for Research Data approved the study (reference number 324277), and the collected data were processed according to the approved guidelines. In the workshops, there were participants from various affiliations. For confidentiality reasons, we have decided not to mention the specific affiliation of each individual in the quotes presented in the results, except for the students from SwD’s discussion group, who will be referred to as “students”. All other participants will be referred to as “professionals”.

2.3. Data and Analysis

A total of 32 h of audio recordings from workshops 2–6, including breakout room discussions, were transcribed verbatim and anonymized. Each participant in the transcripts was assigned a unique identifier. Table 3 provides information on the workshop’s theme, time for conduction of workshops, number of breakout rooms, and total number of recordings from the workshop and breakout rooms.

Table 3. Data collected from the Collaboration Forum.

Collaboration Forum Theme	Time of Implementation	Number of Breakout Rooms	Length of Recordings Attained
Establishing rapport	December 2020	-	No recordings
Dissemination of information	February 2021	3	5 h 43 min
Learning situations	March 2021	3	5 h 39 min
Transition to working life	April 2021	4	6 h 22 min
Assessment and qualifying	May 2021	4	5 h 40 min
Attitudes and discrimination	June 2021	6	8 h 57 min

Note: The first workshop aimed to establish rapport among the participants. No recordings were collected from this workshop, and the first workshop is not included in the results.

The data were analyzed using a qualitative exploratory design and various techniques from constructivist grounded theory (CGT) to study processes and theorize actions (Charmaz 2014). Following each workshop, the project group members convened to discuss their initial understanding of the discussions and participants’ suggestions and to refine themes and questions in preparation for the next workshop.

After all the workshops were completed, the first author used the CGT approach to initially code all transcripts, including transcripts from the breakout rooms. This involves closely studying data fragments to generate a multitude of ideas in the initial stage of the analysis (Charmaz 2014). By using gerunds to create actions within the codes (Charmaz and Bryant 2011), attention was shifted from static topics to enacted processes, thereby encouraging theoretical sensitivity (Charmaz 2014). QSR Internationals’ software NVivo Release 1 was used for initial coding to facilitate the comparison between text and codes.

The first author constructed focused codes beginning with the summary and introduction part of all the workshops and then continuing with the breakout rooms. Both initial codes and focused codes of the transcripts were thoroughly discussed and further developed in collaboration with the project group and the co-authors in all phases of the analysis. The team constantly compared focused codes, initial codes, and text, reflected on memos, and worked together to construct three categories and associated subcategories. The co-construction process coincides with Charmaz’s idea of knowledge development through CGT (Charmaz 2014). Table 4 displays the categories and subcategories that were constructed.

Table 4. Categories and subcategories.

Category	Subcategory
Needing to decide whether to reveal or ignore	Feeling safe or dreading exposure
	Ignoring the disability
	Needing accommodation to excel
Presenting their expertise to professionals	Receiving support
	Experiencing reluctance
	Being contested
	Losing the battle
Becoming an expert on disability	Needing to be an expert
	Studying the disability
	Researching help options

Note: The table shows the categories and subcategories that formed the foundation of the figures in Section 3.

3. Results

Based on the findings from our analysis, we created a figure that outlines processes that the stakeholders believe SwD often face (Figure 1). These processes are deciding whether to disclose their needs (“Determining whether to disclose”), negotiating with teachers to accommodate their learning requirements (“Asking for accommodation”), and working hard to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in these negotiations (“Studying disability”). The processes repeat themself whenever students identify a need that can be addressed through gaining accommodations or requesting accommodations from new people. Multiple figures are, therefore, presented side-by-side.

Figure 1. The repeating processes for students requesting accommodation. Note: The figures depict the processes that students experience when they require accommodation in higher education. The arrows between the figures indicate that the experiences from the previous encounters and processes are carried forward to the next cycle of processes.

The figure will be further elaborated in the succeeding chapters. In summary, the analysis reveals that students who choose to disclose their disabilities often struggle to gain sufficient knowledge about their disability to convince professionals to acknowledge and respond to their needs for accommodations in time. This can result in students being deprived of educational opportunities.

3.1. Determining Whether to Disclose

Determining whether to disclose a disability, asking for accommodation, and gaining knowledge about the disability by studying the disability are interconnected processes, which makes identifying where the cycle begins challenging. In this presentation of the results, we will start by focusing on the decision to disclose the disability (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Determining whether to disclose the disability. Note: The students’ intrinsic openness to sharing information and experience gained from formal processes affects the decision to disclose the disability, ignore it, or compensate for it. A student willing to disclose can ask for accommodation.

The analysis highlights that to receive assistance, SwD must decide whether to disclose their disabilities or not. However, making such a decision appears challenging. The stakeholders in our study experienced that acknowledging the existence of a disability and deciding whether to disclose it could take some time to resolve:

“Quite a few people don’t think it’s all right to declare that they’re having a hard time. (…) They haven’t come far enough in that process, really. Even if we believe it is an opportunity they should grasp, or we tell them they might want to contact the Facilitation Service, they believe doing so is a barrier in itself”.

(Professional)

The willingness of students to disclose their disabilities was influenced by their intrinsic openness to share personal information and fear of adverse outcomes (“Experience”). “Intrinsic openness to sharing information” and “Experience” are placed at the forefront of the figure since they are formed prior to the processes in question. While some believed that disclosing the students’ disabilities would result in receiving appropriate support, others were more hesitant. Students did not want to inconvenience their lecturers or classmates, and some even sympathized with their lecturers, who already had a lot on their plates. Additionally, some students were afraid of being seen as lazy, less capable, or being excluded due to the stigma attached to disabilities:

“Unfortunately, you expect bad attitudes and discrimination in the education since facilitating can be resource intensive. For example, some [students in SwD’s discussion groups] said that they might not accept facilitation because they anticipated assumptions from others about them not trying hard enough. That they just had to invest more time and effort in it, and then they could do it on their own. Arrangements were not really necessary”.

(Student)

According to the analysis, the fear of being misunderstood or judged based on their disabilities led some students to keep their disabilities private and not share them with others. This fear could also cause them to deny or ignore their disabilities altogether (“Ignoring”). The professionals in our study gave examples of students who appeared to be “not open,” “burying themselves in books,” and “being like an ostrich with its head in the sand”. Others tried to handle their challenges alone to avoid drawing attention to themselves (“Compensating”). Some students believed that managing on their own was expected of them:

“A few years ago, I had an almost blind student. I wanted to hear if the teaching we planned met her challenges. She said: ‘I don’t know what to ask for because I think it is what it is. I’m so used to being the one having to adapt.’”

(Professional)

Although disclosing a disability could seem risky, our analysis revealed numerous benefits. According to students and professionals, starting university could be a challenging experience for students, with feelings of loneliness, overwhelming course material, and the intimidating nature of university life. This experience was often amplified for SwD who had to leave behind their support systems and allies such as parents, friends, and assistants. The stakeholders believed that SwD needed to spend a considerable amount of time adapting to the demands of higher education and compensating for their disability, which left less room for studying. Therefore, disclosing one’s disability could be crucial in managing the transition to university, finding allies, and creating an environment that helps students focus on their studies.

Moreover, the analysis showed that students faced difficulties at university due to the lack of universal design and learning measures. The absence of inclusive measures created an unpredictable and challenging study environment. Some student stakeholders found it harder to perform at university in comparison to performing at their workplace. For instance, students who struggled to concentrate and learn during passive lectures could perform better in more active learning environments. Encountering barriers in the university environment could force the students to seek support to overcome them.

Lastly, the students needed to complete their university education to secure a job and contribute to society through their work. Student stakeholders claimed they did not wish to lower the standards but wanted an opportunity to exhibit their competence. For most students, this meant more than just passing the course; they wanted to have the chance to have high ambitions and excel. Some students required adaptations such as alternative examination arrangements to demonstrate their worth. However, to get these adaptations, students needed to speak up about their disabilities and make their needs known. Thus, the professional stakeholders viewed disclosure in higher education as mainly beneficial, and they encouraged students to express their needs to receive support and facilitation.

3.2. Asking for Accommodation

The right side of the figure explores what happens when students disclose disabilities and request accommodation (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Asking for accommodation. Note: The arrows show that the disclosing student can be supported, contested, or met with reluctance. If the student does not receive support but is met with reluctance or is contested, this may lead to the student obtaining more information to facilitate their request or giving up. These experiences of being supported, contested, or met with reluctance remain with the students and will be taken with them along with their intrinsic openness to share information when they encounter these processes again.

The students wished to be treated with respect and understanding when disclosing their disabilities. They also hoped to receive necessary adaptations and accommodations without asking for them specifically. These wishes were sometimes fulfilled. Some students were lucky enough to encounter professionals who encouraged them to disclose their disabilities, were committed to universal design for learning, and did their best to facilitate the students once made aware of their needs (“Supported”). Within and outside the university, opportunities for guidance and support were available for those who were looking for information and support. Students who received accommodation generally experienced a positive effect on their performance, and some felt that their support needs were appropriately addressed.

However, the analysis revealed that receiving the necessary support without investing a lot of effort was not always an easy task. It often relied on chance or luck to meet a professional with the appropriate skills and attitude. The students felt that professionals sometimes seemed hesitant to accommodate their needs, as if it was a last resort and only done if there was no other choice (“Reluctance”). The students also experienced being sent from one professional to another who did not acknowledge the responsibility to provide accommodation. This left the students feeling frustrated and like they were being passed around without any real help or support:

“Many have felt, including myself, and everyone in the student discussion groups agreed, that you become a bit passed around like a ball. You go to the adviser, and the adviser says, ‘Go to the Facilitation Service’, the Facilitation Service says, ‘Go to the examination office’. The examination office says, ‘Go to an adviser.’ ‘Go to the facilitation office again.’”

(Student)

As a result, the students had to start the processes all over again, become familiar with who could help them, and decide whether to disclose, leading to a repetitive cycle. The students needed to attain and present extensive information about the support system to persuade the professionals to provide accommodations. This situation made them feel like they had to “fight the system”.

According to the analysis, the fear of prejudice when disclosing a disability was another concern. This fear was sometimes justified because some students experienced prejudice from professionals who held lower academic expectations for them and disregarded them. Some were even perceived as lazy. Additionally, how requests were received depended on the disability they had. For instance, students who had a disability connected to a powerful user organization were more likely to receive accommodations as these organizations could promote their rights and put some pressure on the university. To convince professionals to respond positively to their requests, students needed the proper documentation to prove their impairment qualified for support. If the documentation was unclear, it allowed skeptical professionals to question if the impairment justified assistance:

“If the impairment, the diagnosis, is apparent and you have good documentation, let’s say you don’t have arms, then it’s obvious. Then, you cannot write with your hands. An alternative form of assessment is then granted. But if you have slightly different forms [of disability], let’s say dyslexia: ‘I want an oral exam.’ Then it is a bit more difficult for the Examinations Office to say that, of course, you should be granted an oral examination. Then, they would like the students, as the students said, to try a little first. See how it goes. And they can get bad grades, as mentioned, and maybe fail too. But it might be that they are granted facilitation the next time”.

(Professional)

Students felt contested when they were encouraged to try without receiving accommodations, were offered accommodations that were not useful, received accommodations too late, or did not receive any accommodations at all. This left them feeling powerless and frustrated, as it seemed like the organization focused more on preventing unwarranted use of accommodation rather than ensuring that eligible students benefited. As one student put it, “The intention should be to facilitate, not to avoid facilitating”.

If a student’s formal request for accommodation was denied, they were advised to file a complaint. However, students found this procedure time-consuming and challenging, requiring them to learn about their rights, formulate a complaint, and provide evidence to justify their needs:

“You must go through a process of exposure. It does not necessarily feel cool to tell everyone that ‘I have [diagnosis]. I find this extremely difficult. I cannot do this. I need this to get by.’ […] If I did not feel like going to a stranger and saying that, it [the accommodation process] would have been halted. Then I would have been rejected”.

(Student)

When contested or met with reluctance, students could gather additional information and knowledge to persuade professionals to accommodate their needs (“Studying disability”). However, if the situation became too uncomfortable, students would give up and stop asking for support altogether (“Giving up”). These experiences of asking for accommodation, whether positive or negative, also impacted students’ future decisions about disclosing their disabilities (“Experience”).

3.3. Studying Disability

When negotiating with professionals who contested their requests or were reluctant to help, it could be useful to inform them about facilitation, disability, and the associated rights. The top part of the figure outlines the knowledge students were expected to hold and its acquisition process (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Studying disability. Note: Students who were contested or met with reluctance needed to gain more knowledge about their condition and the available support systems. However, they often encountered barriers that made it difficult to access this information. This could lead to some students giving up on obtaining the necessary support while others persisted and started a new process of declaring their knowledge and requesting the support they needed.

According to the analysis, students who disclosed their disabilities were expected to possess ample knowledge and competence about their disabilities and their required assistance (“Needing to be an expert”). Professionals assumed that students had chosen courses and future careers that suited their abilities. If students encountered any obstacles, professionals saw it as their failure to understand the course requirements and expectations:

“The students must familiarize themselves with the requirements for obtaining the diploma and make their judgments accordingly. We sometimes experience that students haven’t read the curriculum and qualification requirements implicit in achieving a diploma. Then they might be a little surprised or disappointed by the content”.

(Professional)

However, according to the analysis, the students often needed more competence and had to acquire it. While some students had extensive knowledge about their disabilities and needs, many did not. Students who had recently become aware of their disabilities faced a long journey ahead as they needed to develop an “identity as disabled” (“Struggling to study the disability”). This involved accepting that they had a disability severe enough to qualify for support. However, some found the need to identify as impaired or deviant instead of being a part of an enriching diversity problematic. As one professional explained:

“And it’s also about identity. Because to get help and get the right information, you must have an identity as something impaired, to push the right buttons in a way. So that is when I think it gets a bit problematic”.

(Professional)

Even those who had lived with their disabilities throughout their lives had difficulty imagining what challenges they might face in an unfamiliar environment. The students were expected to communicate their needs to professionals and suggest what would help them. To do this, they had to have expertise about their disabilities, accessible support, and the study environment. Limited knowledge about how a disability would affect a student’s study environment was a significant obstacle to obtaining accurate information. It took time for the students to experience different study situations and get familiar with how they affected them.

The SwD experienced being held responsible for finding information on their rights, the accommodations offered by the university and other professionals, how they could attain the accommodations, and how professionals should facilitate them in university settings and placement. They also had to ensure the professionals performed their duties correctly (“Needing to be an expert”). Obtaining information about available support for SwD was a difficult task, even when they had extensive knowledge about their disabilities and how they impacted their academic journey (“Struggling to study disability support”). New students, in particular, struggled to find the university’s support systems and the individuals they could contact for assistance. They often did not know when to ask for help or how much support they could expect to receive. Although the university’s websites and other digital resources contained much helpful information, accessing this required using the correct search terms. This could be challenging for students unaware of support systems and the opportunities they provide. Finding information could be especially challenging for students who struggled with reading written material or had difficulty concentrating or searching for long periods. As one student explained:

“It is our responsibility to find the information, but firstly, it is often not easy. Secondly, people have vastly different health situations. […] There may be days when it is difficult to get up and get dressed and make coffee. And then you can’t sit for several hours and click through to the website [to find what kind of help you can get at the university]”.

(Student)

The excessive demand for knowledge was considered unreasonable by students and professional stakeholders. The participants claimed that gathering information and arranging measures could be equivalent to a part-time job. As a result, some students had to spend their spare time and energy organizing the accommodations and measures they needed. This could make the students reconsider whether disclosing needs and pursuing accommodation was worthwhile.

3.4. Continuing the Cycle

The figures describe processes that could be repetitive. If the students once again experienced that the professionals resisted the requests or were reluctant to facilitate, they could start a new search for more convincing information. Also, the analysis showed that due to confidentiality and lack of communication between professionals, the students had to repeatedly communicate their need for facilitation to new people and start new processes.

The stakeholders believed the students were expected to have high competence. Some participants also called for more competence among the professionals. For example, one student suggested that professionals should have more knowledge about what to expect and ask about:

“‘What do you need help with?’, ‘What is difficult?’ and ‘How can we best facilitate?’ These three questions are asked frequently. And these three questions are extremely difficult to answer without knowing what you’re up against. Instead, they should ask, ‘How do you take notes?’, ‘How do you learn?’, ‘What kind of aids do you have the best experience with?’ or ‘the worst experience with?’, right?”

(Student)

Navigating the university’s complex bureaucratic systems required much effort, and students with limited resources and capacity often struggled to succeed. Without the guidance of a professional, only a few students followed through with requesting accommodation, resulting in many students losing the battle (“Giving up”). Some dropped out or were deemed “unfit” by professionals and guided out of the study. Others received less benefit from lessons or could not demonstrate the full range of knowledge and skills they had acquired.

The stakeholders wanted to speed up the processes and establish routines that would prevent students from needing to request accommodations repeatedly. To adequately prepare for lessons, professionals required advance notice of the challenges students faced. Delays in student accommodations were frustrating for students and the professionals involved. The process of obtaining the necessary information to formulate their needs and request adaptations or accommodations was complex, making it nearly impossible to acquire the expected expertise in time. For example, the deadline for applying for accommodations to the university was set early in the semester. While the students worked hard to acquire the necessary knowledge, they missed essential opportunities. Gaining knowledge of opportunities and how to use them was a race against time. During the SwD’s discussion groups, some students became upset when they learned about accommodations they could have applied for if only they had known about them. One student representative said:

“[Students in the SwD’s discussion group] talked about things I never knew of. Among others, I can apply for oral examination and other facilitation measures of which I have never heard. And that makes me a bit frustrated. Because I have now completed my bachelor’s degree. And it has gone well. But I am done, and I did not know about certain facilitation measures I could have had. And when I see what facilitation measures there might have been, I get a little disheartened because I know I would have made it much better orally”.

(Student)

Thus, SwD who failed to pass their studies about their disability, their rights, and the university’s disability policy risked missing out on personal development and career opportunities.

4. Discussion

We conducted the present study to investigate the accommodation request process for students with disabilities from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. In doing so, we discovered three closely linked processes: determining whether to disclose, asking for accommodation, and studying disability. Our findings revealed that some students received prompt assistance, but others experienced draining and exhausting processes that led to missed opportunities or giving up. A main finding was that students needed to acquire extensive knowledge to become aware of their options and consider disclosure, as well as expertise and competence to guide and convince professionals to implement inclusive measures. This required a heightened focus on understanding and managing one’s disability, treating it as a distinct subject of study. We also found that this process was time-consuming and filled with many obstacles, making it nearly impossible for students to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills.

The present research sheds light on students’ challenges when they disclose their disability. The process of self-identifying as a disabled person can be complex and fluid, as evidenced by previous studies (Aquino and Bittinger 2019; Bjørnerås et al. 2023b; Claiborne et al. 2011; Dong and Lucas 2016; Forber-Pratt and Zape 2017; Getzel and Thoma 2008; Grimes et al. 2019; Jacklin 2011; Lindsay et al. 2018; Miller et al. 2009; Nieminen 2023; Shpigelman et al. 2022). For instance, SwD can benefit significantly from socializing with their peers and participating in social activities, which can contribute to their success in higher education (Accardo et al. 2019; Getzel and Thoma 2008; Jeannis et al. 2020). Some individuals may choose to stop identifying as disabled to feel a sense of belonging (Aquino and Bittinger 2019) or refrain from disclosure out of fear of faculty and peers viewing them as less capable or recipients of unfair advantages (Grimes et al. 2019; Magnus and Tøssebro 2014; Osborne 2019). Several researchers have highlighted that SwD sometimes face stigmatization when they disclose their disability (Claiborne et al. 2011; Collins et al. 2019; Edwards et al. 2022; Grimes et al. 2019; Jacklin 2011; Li et al. 2021; Miller et al. 2009; Moriña and Orozco 2021; Mutanga 2018; Osborne 2019). Given the desire to belong and the fear of stigma, it is not surprising that the stakeholders in the present study found putting oneself in the category “disabled” challenging.

It is clear from the results of the present study that SwD are often met with opposition and contradiction when making requests for facilitation from professionals. In addition to providing evidence of their impairment, some students had to argue their case repeatedly and thoroughly to prove their worthiness for inclusive measures. They sometimes had to try and fail before receiving assistance to convince professionals that they could not do without the facilitation. The misbelief and contestations against SwD have also been documented in other studies (Brandt 2011; Bualar 2018; Claiborne et al. 2011; Collins et al. 2019; Dollinger et al. 2023; Easterbrook et al. 2019; Edwards et al. 2022; Jeannis et al. 2020; Langørgen et al. 2020; Magnus and Tøssebro 2014; Moriña 2017; Mutanga 2018; Osborne 2019). For instance, Collins et al. found that some staff believed that providing too many resources to SwD could foster an “attitude of disability” and create avenues for exploitation (Collins et al. 2019, p. 1481).

In addition to the danger of stigma and discrimination, it is worrying how much effort students in the present study had to put in to receive the required support after disclosing their disability. Both professionals and students agreed that students were often given too much responsibility to obtain the necessary information. This could be related to academic staff lacking disability-related knowledge and resources to provide SwD with an equal and adequate education (Ristad et al. 2024). Numerous studies have stated that university staff often lack the necessary knowledge for the proper inclusion of SwD (Accardo et al. 2019; Brandt 2011; Bualar 2018; Bunbury 2020; Collins et al. 2019; Dollinger et al. 2023; Getzel and Thoma 2008; Jeannis et al. 2020; Kermit and Holiman 2018; Langørgen et al. 2020; Li et al. 2021; Lindsay et al. 2018; Osborne 2019; Ristad et al. 2024) and that students must provide the needed information (Cook-Sather and Cook-Sather 2023; Getzel and Thoma 2008; Magnus and Tøssebro 2014; Ristad et al. 2024). Moreover, our study and other studies show that students must often train staff and coordinate the measures that must be taken to include them in teaching and practice (Dollinger et al. 2023).

Acquiring knowledge about one’s impairment and needs can be beneficial in the long run, as it can be useful in life and work (Collins et al. 2019). Studies have shown that tutoring educators can be empowering (Bjørnerås et al. 2023b; Dollinger and Hanna 2023). However, these studies were conducted in situations where students volunteered to train teachers. There is a lack of research on how students who are reluctant to identify themselves as disabled feel when they take on the tasks that come with the new identity. Finding information about disabilities and accommodations can be difficult and time-consuming (Bjørnerås et al. 2023b; Grimes et al. 2019), which adds to the already heavy workload of students (Brandt 2011; Cook-Sather and Cook-Sather 2023; Dangoisse et al. 2020; Nieminen 2023). Other studies have shown that SwD may find it challenging to devote time to social interactions due to academic demands (Kermit and Holiman 2018; Shpigelman et al. 2022). Additionally, facilitating accommodations requires good advocacy skills (Accardo et al. 2019; Getzel and Thoma 2008; Lindsay et al. 2018; Osborne 2019), making disclosing a disability even more complex. While it may be necessary to do so to achieve academic success, students may question whether they have the needed skills and whether it is worth the effort required to use the accommodations available to them.

The experts in the present study highlighted the importance of students openly disclosing their disabilities. This view is supported by previous research, highlighting the need for swift disclosure to enable quick and effective support (de Beer et al. 2023; Claiborne et al. 2011; Langørgen et al. 2020; Ristad et al. 2024). Grimes et al. (2019) found that students who have not previously received educational assistance often lack knowledge about the available support and assume it would not be helpful. It takes time for students to understand their disabilities and recognize the benefits of disclosing them (Accardo et al. 2019; Dollinger et al. 2023; Dong and Lucas 2016; Getzel and Thoma 2008; Langørgen and Magnus 2020; Lindsay et al. 2018). Receiving accommodations early can reduce the time taken to complete a degree and increase the likelihood of academic success (Blasey et al. 2023). Therefore, we support the stakeholders’ proposals that professionals should acquire greater competence in assisting students. Figuring out how to accommodate students’ needs cannot be a task for the students alone. We argue that it is natural for professionals to contribute with in-depth knowledge of the course the student is taking and the measures the educational institution can offer. Additionally, as some stakeholders pointed out, professionals should be more on the supply side and let students try out the existing aid schemes rather than holding back and postponing facilitation until one sees no other way out than to offer it. Otherwise, students end up getting accommodations too late (Brandt 2011; Claiborne et al. 2011).

It is also worth noting that various studies have pointed out that students often face obstacles that could be overcome by creating a more universally designed university environment and activities (Brandt 2011; Bualar 2018; Collins et al. 2019; Dollinger et al. 2023; Jeannis et al. 2020; Li et al. 2021; Magnus and Tøssebro 2014; Mutanga 2018). By implementing universal design, the need for additional accommodations for some students could be eliminated or reduced, freeing up more time to address needs that cannot be met through universal design alone. Moreover, the reduced need for accommodations would enable some students to focus on their education rather than constantly focusing on their disability.

Methodological Considerations

The study was conducted at a single university in Norway, so the results may not be applicable to other universities. Furthermore, the results are based on a limited number of stakeholders and their experiences. However, the study’s results are consistent with those found in other studies conducted at universities in different countries, which strengthens the transferability.

Additionally, it is important to note that this study was conducted using a co-creation design, which involved discussions in workshops. This allowed participants to share their experiences and knowledge, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Although the results may have been different if the study was based solely on the individual participants’ experiences, the workshop design has many advantages. The study’s outcome could have a significant impact on both local and broader levels, as the workshops were designed to promote co-learning, constructive knowledge creation, and data generation for research purposes (Shamsuddin et al. 2021; Ørngreen and Levinsen 2017).

Sharing experiences and knowledge among staff members within the university can be a useful tool for strengthening inclusive practices and encouraging new ways of performing work (Ainscow 2016). The establishment of discussion groups for SwD can also be beneficial, as it provides a valuable and empowering experience for them (Bjørnerås et al. 2023a). Moreover, collaboration between SwD and other stakeholders in and around universities is crucial to gain a better understanding of how the study situation is experienced by everyone involved. This understanding can help in proactively removing barriers to achieve equity (Cook-Sather and Cook-Sather 2023). Therefore, we urge for further research to be conducted, where SwD work alongside professionals to gain insight into diversity and find solutions to create a more inclusive culture.

Finally, it is worth discussing our decision to involve stakeholders in determining themes and selecting whom to invite, instead of relying on categories constructed by the researchers to guide further inquiry. In grounded theory, researchers usually conduct additional theoretical sampling based on their tentative findings. However, CGT prioritizes flexibility and avoids a mechanical approach (Charmaz 2014). The researcher in CGT is the author of a co-construction of meaning and experience but is also responsible for incorporating the participants’ narratives (Mills et al. 2006). By allowing stakeholders to lead the way, we believe we strengthened CGT’s aim to create knowledge that is explored from multiple angles and reflects the opinion of the stakeholders.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to explore the accommodation request process for SwD from their perspective and that of support providers. Through a collaborative approach, the study identified three interconnected processes involved in this request: determining whether to disclose, asking for accommodation, and studying disability. These processes can either lead to accommodation being granted or having to proceed without any accommodation. However, for many students, these processes are complex, uncomfortable, and riddled with barriers. The study suggests that disclosing one’s disability does not always benefit the student, as it may result in an increased workload due to facing barriers. Some students ended up using their study time to research their disability and potential accommodations instead of studying their subject matter. The experiences gained from these processes may also influence future decisions about disclosure. To promote inclusion and equity, we recommend that universities take steps to ensure universal design and that staff possess the necessary knowledge to assist students in obtaining accommodations where universal design is not sufficient. More research based on collaboration between SwD and professionals could help identify the nature of such steps.