Next Article in Journal
From Fathers to Fathers—Telephone-Based Peer Support: A Feasibility Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Disclosure Dances in Doctoral Education
Previous Article in Journal
New Forms of Interaction in the Digital Age: The Use of the Telephone
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inclusive Teaching in Higher Education: Challenges of Diversity in Learning Situations from the Lecturer Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/socsci13030154
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Tone Ristad
1,*,
Aud Elisabeth Witsø
1,
Sissel Horghagen
2,
Lisbeth Kvam
1 and
Jørn Østvik
1
1
Department of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
2
Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(3), 154; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030154
Submission received: 13 February 2024 / Revised: 3 March 2024 / Accepted: 5 March 2024 / Published: 7 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Policies and Practice to Support Students with Disabilities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

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 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.
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.
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.

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.
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).
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).
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).
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.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.R., A.E.W., S.H. and J.Ø.; methodology, T.R., A.E.W., S.H. and, J.Ø.; validation, T.R., A.E.W. and S.H.; formal analysis, T.R., A.E.W., S.H. and J.Ø.; investigation, T.R., A.E.W., S.H. and L.K.; writing—original draft preparation, T.R.; writing—review and editing, T.R., A.E.W., S.H., L.K. and J.Ø.; visualization, T.R.; supervision, A.E.W., S.H. and J.Ø.; project administration, T.R. and A.E.W.; funding acquisition, A.E.W., S.H. and L.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The project was funded by the Research Council of Norway in 2020, grant number 303710. The APC was funded by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Norwegian Centre for ResearchData on 24 November 2020 (Reference number 324277).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available due to protecting participant anonymity and privacy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the project team for sharing their priceless knowledge and actively contributing to successfully implementing the Collaboration Forum. A sincere thank you to Gemma Goodall for meticulously proofreading the manuscript. Most importantly, the authors express their heartfelt appreciation to the stakeholders who participated in the Collaboration Forum and its associated student discussion groups and generously shared their viewpoints and expertise with us.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Accardo, Amy L., Kimberly Bean, Barbara Cook, Ann Gillies, Rebecca Edgington, S. Jay Kuder, and Estyr M. Bomgardner. 2019. College Access, Success and Equity for Students on the Autism Spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 49: 4877–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ainscow, Mel. 2016. Diversity and Equity: A Global Education Challenge. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 51: 143–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aquino, Katherine. 2022. Exploring Postsecondary Administrators’ Inclusion of Disability within Their Definition of Student Diversity. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 69: 1565–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aquino, Katherine C., and Joshua D. Bittinger. 2019. The Self-(un)Identification of Disability in Higher Education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 32: 5–19. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ballo, Jannike Gottschalk. 2020. Labour Market Participation for Young People with Disabilities: The Impact of Gender and Higher Education. Work, Employment & Society 34: 336–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Benelli, Natalie, Antonin Zurbuchen, Morgane Kuehni, Peter Streckeisen, and Spartaco Greppi. 2023. From disabled people’s right to work to the duty to work? Changes in Swiss disability policy and its implementation at the cantonal level. Social Work & Society 21: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bjørnerås, Anita Blakstad, Eli Langørgen, Aud Elisabeth Witsø, Lisbeth Kvam, Ann-Elén Leithaug, and Sissel Horghagen. 2023a. Aiming for inclusion: Processes taking place in co-creation involving students with disabilities in higher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bjørnerås, Anita Blakstad, Eli Langørgen, Aud Elisabeth Witsø, Lisbeth Kvam, Daniel Myhr, Jenny Marie Ragnhild Andersen, Gemma Goodall, and Sissel Horghagen. 2023b. Disabled student ambassadors promote inclusion in Norwegian higher education: Building competencies and strategies for the future. Disability & Society, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blasey, Julia, Cixin Wang, and Ralph Blasey. 2023. Accommodation Use and Academic Outcomes for College Students With Disabilities. Psychological Reports 126: 1891–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blix, Bodil H, and Gudmund Ågotnes. 2023. Aging Successfully in the Changing Norwegian Welfare State: A Policy Analysis Framed by Critical Gerontology. The Gerontologist 63: 1228–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brandt, Synnove. 2011. From Policy to Practice in Higher Education: The experiences of disabled students in Norway. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 58: 107–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bualar, Theeraphong. 2018. Barriers to inclusive higher education in Thailand: Voices of blind students. Asia Pacific Education Review 19: 469–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bunbury, Stephen. 2020. Disability in higher education–do reasonable adjustments contribute to an inclusive curriculum? International Journal of Inclusive Education 24: 964–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carmichael, Fiona, and Harriet Clarke. 2022. Why work? Disability, family care and employment. Disability & Society 37: 765–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carroll, Jamie M., Evangeleen Pattison, Chandra Muller, and April Sutton. 2020. Barriers to Bachelor’s Degree Completion among College Students with a Disability. Sociological Perspectives 63: 809–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  17. Charmaz, Kathy, and Antony Bryant. 2011. Grounded Theory and Credibility. In Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Edited by David Silverman. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 291–309. [Google Scholar]
  18. Claiborne, Lise Bird, Sue Cornforth, Ava Gibson, and Alexandra Smith. 2011. Supporting students with impairments in higher education: Social inclusion or cold comfort? International Journal of Inclusive Education 15: 513–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clarsen, Benjamin, Magne Nylenna, Søren Toksvig Klitkou, Stein Emil Vollset, Carl Michael Baravelli, Anette Kocbach Bølling, Gunn Marit Aasvang, Gerhard Sulo, Mohsen Naghavi, Maja Pasovic, and et al. 2022. Changes in life expectancy and disease burden in Norway, 1990–2019: An analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Public Health 7: e593–e605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Collins, Ayse, Fara Azmat, and Ruth Rentschler. 2019. ‘Bringing everyone on the same journey’: Revisiting inclusion in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 44: 1475–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cook-Sather, Alison, and Morgan Cook-Sather. 2023. From Reporting to Removing Barriers: Toward Transforming Accommodation Culture into Equity Culture. Education Sciences 13: 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. 2015. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  23. Crotty, Michael J. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research. Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dangoisse, Florence, Mikaël De Clercq, Florence Van Meenen, Laurie Chartier, and Frédéric Nils. 2020. When disability becomes ability to navigate the transition to higher education: A comparison of students with and without disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education 35: 513–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. de Beer, Annemarike, Luzelle Naudé, and Lindi Nel. 2023. From disabled to differently abled: A psychofortological perspective on first-year students living with disability. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. De Los Santos, Stephanie Bain, Lori Kupczynski, and Marie-Anne Mundy. 2019. Determining Academic Success in Students with Disabilities in Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education 8: 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dollinger, Mollie, and Lisa Hanna. 2023. Students with disabilities mentoring staff: Supporting scalable academic development for inclusive education. International Journal for Academic Development. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dollinger, Mollie, Rola Ajjawi, Rachel Finneran, and Sarah O’shea. 2023. Conceptualising responsibility and hostility within work-integrated learning placements for students with disabilities. Disability & Society. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dong, Shengli, and Margaretha S. Lucas. 2016. An Analysis of Disability, Academic Performance, and Seeking Support in One University Setting. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 39: 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Easterbrook, Adam, Laura Yvonne Bulk, Tal Jarus, Brian Hahn, Parisa Ghanouni, Michael Lee, Marlee Groening, Bathseba Opini, and Gurdeep Parhar. 2019. University gatekeepers’ use of the rhetoric of citizenship to relegate the status of students with disabilities in Canada. Disability & Society 34: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Edwards, Miriam, Shiralee Poed, Hadeel Al-Nawab, and Olivia Penna. 2022. Academic accommodations for university students living with disability and the potential of universal design to address their needs. Higher Education 84: 779–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Forber-Pratt, Anjali J., and Marianne P. Zape. 2017. Disability identity development model: Voices from the ADA-generation. Disability and Health Journal 10: 350–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Getzel, Elizabeth Evans, and Colleen A. Thoma. 2008. Experiences of College Students With Disabilities and the Importance of Self-Determination in Higher Education Settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 31: 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gibbons, Michael. 1999. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402: C81–C84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Goodall, Gemma, Odd Morten Mjøen, Aud Elisabeth Witsø, Sissel Horghagen, and Lisbeth Kvam. 2022. Barriers and Facilitators in the Transition From Higher Education to Employment for Students With Disabilities: A Rapid Systematic Review. Frontiers in Education 7: 882066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Grimes, Susan, Erica Southgate, Jill Scevak, and Rachel Buchanan. 2019. University student perspectives on institutional non-disclosure of disability and learning challenges: Reasons for staying invisible. International Journal of Inclusive Education 23: 639–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hellstrand, Julia, Jessica Nisén, Vitor Miranda, Peter Fallesen, Lars Dommermuth, and Mikko Myrskylä. 2021. Not Just Later, but Fewer: Novel Trends in Cohort Fertility in the Nordic Countries. Demography 58: 1373–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hyggen, Christer, Terje Olsen Lidija Kolouh-Söderlund, Rune Halvorsen Jenny Tägtström, and Bjørn Hvinden. 2018. Young People at Risk. School Dropout and Labour Market Exclusion in the Nordic countries. In Youth, Diversity and Employment: Comparative Perspectives on Labour Market Policies. Edited by Rune Halvorsen and Bjørn Hvinden. Cheltenham: Edward Elvar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jacklin, Angela. 2011. To be or not to be ‘a disabled student’ in higher education: The case of a postgraduate ‘non-declaring’ (disabled) student. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 11: 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jeannis, Hervens, Mary Goldberg, Katherine Seelman, Mark Schmeler, and Rory A. Cooper. 2020. Barriers and facilitators to students with physical disabilities’ participation in academic laboratory spaces. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 15: 225–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kermit, Patrick Stefan, and Sidsel Holiman. 2018. Inclusion in Norwegian Higher Education: Deaf Students’ Experiences with Lecturers. Social Inclusion 6: 158–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kim, Won Ho, and Juyoung Lee. 2016. The Effect of Accommodation on Academic Performance of College Students With Disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 60: 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kyu, Hmwe Hmwe, Hmwe Hmwe Kyu, Degu Abate, Degu Abate, Kalkidan Hassen Abate, Kalkidan Hassen Abate, Solomon M. Abay, Solomon M. Abay, Cristiana Abbafati, Cristiana Abbafati, and et al. 2018. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet 392: 1859–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Langørgen, Eli, and Eva Magnus. 2020. ‘I have something to contribute to working life’–students with disabilities showcasing employability while on practical placement. Journal of Education and Work 33: 271–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Langørgen, Eli, Patrick Kermit, and Eva Magnus. 2020. Gatekeeping in professional higher education in Norway: Ambivalence among academic staff and placement supervisors towards students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education 24: 616–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, Huan, Jiaying Lin, Hongyu Wu, Zhaojun Li, and Mengxue Han. 2021. “How do I survive exclusion?” Voices of students with disabilities at China’s top universities. Children and Youth Services Review 120: 105738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lindsay, Sally, Elaine Cagliostro, and Gabriella Carafa. 2018. A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators of Disability Disclosure and Accommodations for Youth in Post-Secondary Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 65: 526–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Magnus, Eva, and Jan Tøssebro. 2014. Negotiating individual accommodation in higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 16: 316–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Miller, Sarah, Sarah Ross, and Jennifer Cleland. 2009. Medical students’ attitudes towards disability and support for disability in medicine. Medical Teacher 31: e272–e277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mills, Jane, Ann Bonner, and Karen Francis. 2006. The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5: 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Moriña, Anabel. 2017. ‘We aren’t heroes, we’re survivors’: Higher education as an opportunity for students with disabilities to reinvent an identity. Journal of Further and Higher Education 41: 215–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Moriña, Anabel, and Inmaculada Orozco. 2021. Spanish faculty members speak out: Barriers and aids for students with disabilities at university. Disability & Society 36: 159–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Moriña, Anabel, Marta Sandoval, and Fuensanta Carnerero. 2020. Higher education inclusivity: When the disability enriches the university. Higher Education Research & Development 39: 1202–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mutanga, Oliver. 2018. Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in South African Higher Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 65: 229–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nieminen, Juuso Henrik. 2023. Unveiling ableism and disablism in assessment: A critical analysis of disabled students’ experiences of assessment and assessment accommodations. Higher Education 85: 613–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Nowotny, Helga. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30: 151–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ørngreen, Rikke, and Karin Tweddell Levinsen. 2017. Workshops as a Research Methodology. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 15: 70–81. [Google Scholar]
  58. Osborne, Tanya. 2019. Not lazy, not faking: Teaching and learning experiences of university students with disabilities. Disability & Society 34: 228–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ristad, Tone, Jørn Østvik, Sissel Horghagen, Lisbeth Kvam, and Aud Elisabeth Witsø. 2024. A multi-stakeholder perspective on inclusion in higher education: Ruling on fragile ground. International Journal of Educational Research Open 6: 100311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shamsuddin, Azwa, Aziz Sheikh, and Richard N. Keers. 2021. Conducting Research Using Online Workshops During COVID-19: Lessons for and Beyond the Pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shpigelman, Carmit-Noa, Sagit Mor, Dalia Sachs, and Naomi Schreuer. 2022. Supporting the development of students with disabilities in higher education: Access, stigma, identity, and power. Studies in Higher Education 47: 1776–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. United Nations. 2006. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available online: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm (accessed on 4 April 2023).
  63. van Veen, Saskia C., Joske GF Bunders, and Barbara J. Regeer. 2013. Mutual learning for knowledge co-creation about disability inclusive development programmes and practice. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 9: 105–24. [Google Scholar]
Socsci 13 00154 g001
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.
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.
Socsci 13 00154 g001
Socsci 13 00154 g002
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.
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.
Socsci 13 00154 g002
Socsci 13 00154 g003
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.
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.
Socsci 13 00154 g003
Socsci 13 00154 g004
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.
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.
Socsci 13 00154 g004
Table 1. Themes and numbers of participants in the Collaboration Forum and SwD’ discussion groups.
Table 1. Themes and numbers of participants in the Collaboration Forum and SwD’ discussion groups.
ThemesParticipants
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 informationSwD’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 lifeSwD’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 qualifyingSwD’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 2. Demographics for the 18 individuals attending the students with disabilities’ discussion groups.
Table 2. Demographics for the 18 individuals attending the students with disabilities’ discussion groups.
Sex and AgeImpairment Reported
Female17Chronic disease6
Male1Mental health disorder7
Age 20–258Mobility impairment1
Age 26–303Neurological impairment8
Age 31–477Visual impairment2
Note: Table 2 displays the number of participants categorized by gender, age, and self-reported impairment.
Table 3. Data collected from the Collaboration Forum.
Table 3. Data collected from the Collaboration Forum.
Collaboration Forum ThemeTime of ImplementationNumber of Breakout RoomsLength of Recordings Attained
Establishing rapportDecember 2020-No recordings
Dissemination of informationFebruary 202135 h 43 min
Learning situationsMarch 202135 h 39 min
Transition to working lifeApril 202146 h 22 min
Assessment and qualifyingMay 202145 h 40 min
Attitudes and discriminationJune 202168 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.
Table 4. Categories and subcategories.
Table 4. Categories and subcategories.
CategorySubcategory
Needing to decide whether to reveal or ignoreFeeling safe or dreading exposure
Ignoring the disability
Needing accommodation to excel
Presenting their expertise to professionalsReceiving support
Experiencing reluctance
Being contested
Losing the battle
Becoming an expert on disabilityNeeding 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.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ristad, T.; Witsø, A.E.; Horghagen, S.; Kvam, L.; Østvik, J. Studying Disability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Requesting Accommodation in Higher Education. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030154

AMA Style

Ristad T, Witsø AE, Horghagen S, Kvam L, Østvik J. Studying Disability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Requesting Accommodation in Higher Education. Social Sciences. 2024; 13(3):154. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030154

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ristad, Tone, Aud Elisabeth Witsø, Sissel Horghagen, Lisbeth Kvam, and Jørn Østvik. 2024. "Studying Disability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Requesting Accommodation in Higher Education" Social Sciences 13, no. 3: 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030154

APA Style

Ristad, T., Witsø, A. E., Horghagen, S., Kvam, L., & Østvik, J. (2024). Studying Disability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Requesting Accommodation in Higher Education. Social Sciences, 13(3), 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030154

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop