Stars and Squares: Mapping the Strengths and Challenges of Disability Service Provision in International Higher Education

Abstract

Professionals from 13 universities representing eight countries participated in a journey mapping activity that requested participants map a student with a disability’s journey at their institution from initial interaction to progress toward graduation. Following the activity, participants reflected on their visual representation of the perceived student journey through questions provided in a reflection document. These documents were analyzed to identify strengths and challenges in disability service office practices. Strengths include student-centered services delivered utilizing clear accommodation processes informed by a caring culture within a supportive institution. Challenges within the disability service office include disability service staff capacity and unclear policies, and challenges across the institution include both a lack of resources and inclusive policies. The knowledge and resistance toward inclusion by professors and professional staff is a foundational challenge in supporting the student population. Implications for practice, policy and research are identified with the goal of expanding global efforts to improve access and success in higher education for students with disabilities.

1. Introduction

Research regarding higher education disability services reflects its exponential growth as the number of research articles on the topic has almost doubled in a recent ten-year period versus the previous 70. Despite the rapid increase in the number of research articles on the topic, there continues to be less research conducted outside of North America in general, and the United States in particular (Madaus et al., 2024). The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), a global policy, articulates the rights of persons with disabilities to be included at all levels of education including tertiary education (UN General Assembly, 2006). In fact, the CRPD and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have shaped policy decisions in several member countries (Chou et al., 2023; Citarella et al., 2020; García-Cedillo et al., 2015; Velasco Jáuregui et al., 2015). Yet, there remains a need to better understand interventions that support students with disabilities who often encounter challenges in the tertiary setting (Madaus et al., 2024).

Disability services for students with disabilities are typically delivered by Disability Services Offices (DSOs) who, among other practices, may develop student support plans that include accommodations specific to each student’s disability and access needs. In this article, we use the term ‘accommodations’ to refer to the reasonable and appropriate adjustments that are made to ensure students have access on an equal basis with their peers (UN General Assembly, 2006). We use accommodations but recognize that some contexts use ‘adjustments’.

With the goal of maximizing student access and opportunity for degree completion, several standard frameworks have been developed that articulate the roles and responsibilities of DSOs and their respective personnel. These include, and may not be limited to, the Association for Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) Program Standards and Professional Competencies, Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) Disability Resources and Services Standards, and EUni4All Network Guide of Standards of Inclusion for University Students with Disabilities (Association on Higher Education and Disability, 2021; Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2023; EUni4All-Network, 2022). As is evident from the multiple standard frameworks, there is no universal method for service development and delivery in global higher education settings.

1.1. Research Across Contexts

In 2024, our research team conducted a qualitative multi-case study utilizing focus groups to determine successes and challenges related to service delivery and supports for students with disabilities navigating higher education (Faggella-Luby et al., in press; Mendoza et al., 2026). This study expanded the limited research on disability in higher education across country contexts, most often conducted via literature reviews (Carballo et al., 2026; Dumitru et al., 2024; Freer, 2023; McNicholl et al., 2021; Moriña, 2022; Nieminen et al., 2024). In one such review, researchers found only 1.85% of the 1516 articles sharing original data were conducted across multiple country contexts (Madaus et al., 2024). In our prior focus group study, service delivery success included the active role of students and families, a culture of inclusion and service within the DSO, institutional support, and student-success-minded services. The challenges included barriers to student disability disclosure, a misunderstanding of disability and institutional culture of merit, institutional gaps (developing programs, gaps in services, and institutional structure limitations), professor pushback, and accommodation decisions that are not standardized (Faggella-Luby et al., in press; Mendoza et al., 2026). In response to these findings, we argued that institutions can use the information from the sub-themes of culture, institution, and program to inform their own practice. For example, within the disability support services program, personalized care, accommodations, and the opportunities to support professors and professional staff in trainings, meetings, etc., provide support to these successes.

1.2. Research Using Journey Mapping

Journey mapping has been utilized to better understand the patient experience and medical care delivery as well as the broader consumer experience (Crosier & Handford, 2012; Davies et al., 2023; Howard, 2014; Ortbal et al., 2016). In education contexts, journey mapping has been used to examine first year teacher experiences and student educational pathways (Annamma, 2018; Johnson et al., 2014). More specifically in higher education, journey mapping has been adapted from consumer experience models and has been utilized for instruction development, examining systems and processes, increasing student satisfaction and engagement, and encouraging development of competencies for students and instructors (de la Rosa et al., 2025). Most notably, in consumer experience and educational journey research, people with disabilities have detailed their journeys leading to a deeper understanding of their experiences (Annamma, 2018; Crosier & Handford, 2012). In several studies, journey mapping has also been used to inform the redesign and improvement of services in the medical and education fields (Davies et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2014). Therefore, it provided a useful starting point for engaging participants as we considered how to potentially improve disability service delivery in higher education.

1.3. Research Questions

At the Postsecondary Disability Training Institute (PTI) 2025, a unique data collection and analysis process was utilized to better understand how services are provided for students with disabilities in higher education. Professionals from 13 partner institutions attended this international conference related to higher education and disability in Boston, Massachusetts in May of 2025. Attendees from four of the universities also participated in the aforementioned focus group study. In this case, journey mapping, an underutilized concept in education but employed in medical research, was used to collect visual and analytic data on service provision strengths and challenges (Annamma, 2018; Davies et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2014). We extended this methodology by creating a journey mapping activity specific to disability services in higher education and integrating an analysis of the journey mapping reflection documents generated by participants following their creation of a journey map (Davies et al., 2023; de la Rosa et al., 2025). The journey map activity served as a visual representation of the practitioner-perceived student journey and provided a structured activity for eliciting reflection on practice. This expanded methodology combined with a broader participant pool representing international universities enabled us to compare with, juxtapose, and expand upon findings from the focus groups. Thus, the research questions for the study were as follows:

• What are the strengths of service provision identified by practitioners and researchers supporting students with disabilities in higher education?
• What are the challenges to service provision identified by practitioners and researchers supporting students with disabilities in higher education?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study and Instrument Design

To respond to these questions, we conducted an activity that provided participants the opportunity to reflect on a student’s journey (hypothetical or lived) through the university experience and to identify the strengths and challenges of accessibility service delivery for the student (Davies et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2014; Ortbal et al., 2016). As this methodology lacks a standardized protocol, we drew on researcher recommendations to promote transparency in our reporting. Specifically, we describe here how the process of mapping and subsequent reflection on the visual map contributed to addressing the research questions, how the research team interpreted the findings, and how participants validated those interpretations (Davies et al., 2023; Ortbal et al., 2016). To encourage richer detail in participants’ maps, we created examples and incorporated supplemental supports such as a word bank and the chance to discuss with their peers. Examples were drawn from screenshots of journey maps from the published literature and acted as a scaffold for how participants could organize their map (Davies et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2014; Ortbal et al., 2016). The word bank was generated through understanding the literature, selected standards (e.g., AHEAD, CAS), and prior research. The team created a list of actors from four main groups: people, environment, policies, and services. The example maps and word bank were embedded into the multi-step activity detailed below.

Prior to the conference, our team developed a brief reflection questionnaire for participants to complete at the conclusion of the session. The questions were intentionally aligned with the study’s research questions. The questionnaire included items addressing program strengths, challenges faced by students with disabilities at their university, and challenges encountered by staff in providing services. This question was broad and could have been answered about either DSO staff specifically or professional staff throughout the university. Additional items asked participants to identify any aspects of the program that remained unclear, the primary challenge they would want to address first, and their job title. This document served as the unit of analysis for the thematic analysis detailed here. Prior to using this activity at the conference, two researchers piloted it with disability service practitioners to ensure the directions were clear and the data elicited could respond to the research questions. The materials were translated and available for participants in either Spanish or English.

The research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research at the first and second authors’ institution in April 2025 under ID #2024-156. In conducting the analysis, the research team drew on the qualitative methods criteria outlined in Brantlinger et al. (2005), which emphasize researcher reflexivity, credibility, and validity. To meet these criteria, we engaged in ongoing collaboration and peer debriefing, established procedures for data triangulation, and incorporated member checks and auditing to verify findings.

2.2. Sample

The sample for this study consisted of a purposive convenience sample drawn from professionals attending a Strategic Partnerships for Inclusive Disability Education and Research (SPIDER) Consortium-sponsored pre-conference session at the Postsecondary Disability Training Institute (PTI). Universities were invited to attend based on existing relationships, scholarly activity, and recognized work in disability services. All participants held positions within or collaborated with higher education institutions, either in the United States or internationally, and their roles involved direct or related support for students with disabilities. Participants self-disclosed their primary roles, which included disability services staff, university administrators, researchers, and other related practitioners. Table 1 presents the range of backgrounds for the 30 participants. The universities represented in the sample include six from North America, three from Europe, and four from Asia, totaling eight countries overall. To protect the identity of participants and their universities, we provide context via global regions. Provision of country specific information might identify the universities, because in some cases a small number of universities are operating within the country. By engaging a broad group of university personnel across diverse international contexts, we were able to triangulate the data via perspectival triangulation accounting for patterns and variations in experiences across settings (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Table 1. Roles of journey mapping participants.

Role	Number of Participants
University Administrator	12
Faculty Member/Researcher	4
Disability Service Office Professional	10
Other	4

2.3. Data Collection

Participants were guided through five prompts during the pre-conference session:

• After viewing multiple examples of journey maps, participants were asked to create a map of a student’s journey—either fictional or real—through their institution, including key touchpoints with the DSO or other departments providing accessibility support (Davies et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2014; Ortbal et al., 2016).
• Participants were then provided with the word bank to help them add further detail to their map as needed. At this stage, a different pen color was introduced to distinguish additions made during the second round of mapping.
• Next, participants were asked to identify and mark the successes and challenges experienced by the students on their map. Stars were used to denote support or experiences that were successful, and squares were used to indicate challenging experiences.
• Finally, participants were given the opportunity to discuss their maps with their peers. They were invited to add any additional details in a third color if they wished.
• Following the journey mapping activity, participants were given the reflection document containing the reflection questions (strengths, challenges for students, and challenges for staff) and asked to complete it in writing.

After completing the reflection document, participants were given the option to consent to the study or keep their materials separate from the research (all participants received copies of the study information prior to arrival). The research team then collected all maps and written documents in order to photograph the materials from consenting participants.1 A total of 28 journey maps and 30 reflection documents were collected. There is a difference in the number of maps and reflection documents because two of the 30 participants completed one map together. Additionally, one participant created a journey map that depicted their own journey and thus was excluded.

2.4. Coding and Analysis

To address the research questions, we chose to focus on the participants’ written responses from the 30 journey mapping reflection documents. These documents included the participant reflections following the activity and could directly respond to the research questions because participants detailed their perceived program strengths and challenges for staff. The journey maps themselves informed the research process but were not treated as the primary unit of analysis. Two members of the research team coded and analyzed the written reflection responses to identify themes, patterns, and relationships both within and across universities. The qualitative coding software Atlas.ti version 26 was used to conduct all coding.

The codebook was developed through an inductive process involving two coders from the research team. During the first round of coding, each response was segmented according to the specific question it addressed. One transcript did not include any strengths, and another omitted a response to the staff challenges question. In the second round, the two coders engaged in ‘coding by committee’ applying in vivo and descriptive codes to each written response (Ravitch & Carl, 2016; Saldaña, 2013, p. 35). Codes were marked with a (+) or (−) to indicate whether they originated from a strength or challenges prompt. Prior to the third round of coding, the coders jointly reviewed and refined the codebook. This revised codebook was then used to re-code all 30 reflection documents.

To examine the written responses, we conducted analyses both within and across universities. First, the two coders analyzed responses at the university level to determine whether participants from the same institution identified similar strengths and challenges. Unique codes were given to responses from participants at the same institution. Although there is still potential for influence from institutional or contextual perspectives, the inclusion of multiple participants did lead to additional perspectives from each context.

Next, Actor-Network Theory framed the development of code groups. Actor-Network Theory can be used to understand how networks with a variety of human and non-human actors produce organizations and implement services (Fenwick, 2011; Law, 1992). Actor-Network Theory was especially helpful for responding to the research questions because it can be used to consider service and policy implementation (Fenwick, 2011; Koyama, 2015; Law, 1992). The coders organized the codes by grouping them by human actors (e.g., DSO or institution) or by non-human actors (e.g., lack of knowledge/awareness or accommodations) (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2014; Koyama, 2015). The two coders then engaged in a thematic analysis of each group of codes (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). They reviewed the quotations from each grouping and analyzed them for themes that articulated how the human and non-human actors participated in and/or affected service provision. Together they completed an initial write up of these findings.

To validate the findings, we employed data triangulation, investigator triangulation, and participant validation (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Specifically, the 28 journey maps were coded and compared to written responses. The two coders reviewed all 28 maps and pulled out the text that had a star next to it, indicating the participant noted it as a success for the student, and the text that had a square next to it, indicating the participant noted it as a challenge for the student. Each ‘star’ or ‘square’-identified text was coded, before the codes were grouped and analyzed thematically. Additional nuance found through this process was incorporated into the findings where appropriate.

Next, two additional members of the research team conducted an audit of the worksheets (Brantlinger et al., 2005). Following this, a brief summary of the themes was sent to the 28 participants who consented to engage in member checks. The member checks were sent to participants through an anonymous survey. Participants were asked whether these themes aligned with their experiences. Ten of the 28 responded. Ten participants responded to the question about strengths and nine responded to the question about challenges.

Of the ten participants who responded, eight of ten indicated alignment with the strengths summary and eight of nine indicated alignment with the challenges summary. Three participants provided further clarification on challenges, which corresponded with the broader thematic patterns in the findings. Although only one-third of participants responded to the member check, the member check process strengthens the credibility and trustworthiness of the analysis by including participants in the process of confirming and clarifying the interpretation of their responses (Caelli et al., 2003; Morse et al., 2002; Tracy, 2010). Participant-provided nuance was incorporated into the final findings.

3. Findings

Following the analysis of participant responses, we expanded our understanding of successes and challenges associated with providing services to students with disabilities. Identified DSO strengths included comprehensive, student-centered services and a clear, streamlined accommodations process grounded in a caring culture that supports student success. When adequately resourced and structurally supported, DSOs function as part of a collaborative and inclusive institution.

However, practitioners and researchers serving students with disabilities also reported challenges related to office operations and service delivery, particularly those stemming from limited staffing capacity and unclear policies and procedures. At the broader institution level, misaligned priorities can further complicate efforts to fully include students with disabilities. Across contexts, participants emphasized that foundational challenges persist in the form of professor and professional staff knowledge, awareness, and attitudes, including resistance or pushback, which collectively hinder the effective support of students with disabilities.

The findings detail the themes identified across the entire dataset. As noted above, to ensure that we did not have themes that represented exclusively North American perspectives, we conducted analyses of the quotes attributed to each theme. Likewise, to verify that the participant conversations during the journey mapping activity did not create uniform responses from participants, we analyzed for themes at the individual university level. However, the goal of this research is to identify strengths and challenges across the contexts and thus, the themes below are those found across the whole participant group. Table 2 outlines the subthemes for strengths and challenges along with their definition, which universities contributed to the identification of the theme, and an example quote. Following each quote from a participant, we include here a code of the numbers representing each university and the participant who was quoted.

Table 2. Themes, subthemes, and institutional representation of strengths and challenges in disability service provision.

Theme	Subtheme	Definition	Representation	Example Quote
Strengths	Comprehensive services	Breadth of support the DSO offers students: service provision and referral beyond accommodations alone, staff who hold genuine professional knowledge of disability, and routine outreach and cross-departmental collaboration that keeps students connected to the wider university.	11 universities total 3 from Asia (2 different countries) 3 from Europe (3 different countries) 5 from North America (2 different countries)	‘Easy communication cross departments’ (2.3)
	Student-centered support	Support organized around the individual student rather than a fixed service menu: a named person the student can speak to who listens, validates, and offers individualized problem-solving.	7 universities total 3 from Asia (2 different countries) 3 from Europe (3 different countries) 1 from North America	‘We are student focused, work as a team in the best interests of students and we support them when they need us. We are efficient and we communicate frequently. We liaise with other University Stakeholders to support them’ (6.3)
	Clear and simple accommodations process	A route into accommodations that participants could describe as transparent and low burden: proactive outreach at early stages, flexibility in documentation, and a standardized procedure that reduces administrative load for students and staff alike.	7 universities total 2 from Asia (2 different countries) 3 from Europe (3 different countries) 2 from North America (1 country)	‘accommodation process is clear & comparatively less complicated’ (2.2)
	Caring culture for success	An office and campus climate focused on student outcomes and support: visible work to reduce the stigma attached to disclosure, celebration of disabled students and staff, and relational, multidisciplinary partnerships that make inclusion an everyday practice rather than a compliance step.	9 universities total 2 from Asia (1 country) 2 from Europe (2 different countries) 5 from North America (2 different countries)	‘Willingness to serve the students who come with a wide range of disability—positive attitude’ (7.2)
Challenges	DSO operations and services	Constraints located inside the office itself: staffing that has not kept pace with rising demand; the workload strain and burnout risk that follows; and eligibility, documentation and support-planning procedures that are unclear or overly complex to administer.	10 universities 2 from Asia (2 different countries) 3 from Europe (3 different countries) 5 from North America (3 different countries)	‘Sheer volume of people asking for individual adjustments—workload pressures’ (9.2)
	Institutional priorities	Barriers originating outside of the DSO office: university policies and funding allocation do not position disability as a core commitment for the institution, which can make effective service delivery difficult.	12 universities 4 from Asia (2 different countries) 3 from Europe (3 different countries) 5 from North America (3 different countries)	‘the university doesn’t put more importance on serving students [with] disabilities’ (5.2)
	Knowledge and attitudes	Gaps in understanding of and negative attitudes towards disability: lack of knowledge of professors, professional staff, and peers as well as resistance and pushback toward inclusive practice.	13 universities 4 from Asia (2 different countries) 3 from Europe (3 different countries) 6 from North America (3 different countries)	‘attitudes of faculty, lack of knowledge, despite repeated offerings of trainings which are not taken up’ (6.2)

3.1. Strengths

3.1.1. Comprehensive Services

Participants described several strengths of DSOs, including intentional efforts to build relationships and foster collaborative partnerships across campus. DSO staff were characterized as committed to supporting students and as possessing the professional knowledge to do so effectively. For example, a DSO professional from a European University highlighted their ‘Brilliant, professional, caring colleagues’ as a key program strength (9.1). Similarly, an administrator from an Asian university identified their strength in ‘Build[ing] strong partnerships with student + university’ (1.3).

In their efforts to connect students to the broader university community, DSOs also play a central role in ensuring access to information through regular outreach and cross-departmental communication with professors and professional staff. A DSO professional from a European university noted ‘we communicate frequently’ (6.3), a sentiment echoed by an administrator from an Asian university who emphasized the value of ‘Easy communication cross departments’ (2.3). Such communication often leads to additional support for students, reinforcing the DSO’s role in facilitating inclusive institutional practices.

Participants also identified the provision of services including referrals to coaching and tutoring, the implementation of accommodations, and efforts to connect students to the broader university as key strengths of DSOs. A researcher from a North American university wrote, ‘Hay una mayor presencia/consolidación de la [oficina]. La oficina ha logrado ampliar y fortalecer sus actividades con el alumnado’ [There is a greater presence/consolidation of the (office). The office has managed to expand and strengthen its activities with the students] (8.1). Similarly, an administrator from another North American university also noted their ‘combined DS [disability services]/academic resources program offers for easier [and] quicker referrals to coaching/tutoring’ (12.1). Institutions with additional supports such as career planning and academic success programs were seen as offering meaningful benefits to students with disabilities. Several participants also described contextual factors unique to their universities that enhanced student support, such as flexibility, small campus environments, or the availability of financial resources. These localized resources further contributed to the perceived strengths within their DSOs.

3.1.2. Student-Centered Support

Participants emphasized one-to-one support and the availability of individualized student-focused services as key strengths of their offices. A DSO professional from an Asian university noted that ‘students have individuals they can speak to who will validate and have willingness to support. Process to apply access arrangements is standardized’ (3.3). Similarly, a DSO professional from a European university shared, ‘We are student focused, work as a team in the best interests of students and we support them when they need us. We are efficient and we communicate frequently. We liaise with other University Stakeholders to support them’ (6.3). Together, these perspectives highlight the provision of comprehensive, student-centered services as well as effective assistance in accessing accommodations as central strengths of DSOs.

3.1.3. Clear and Simple Accommodations Process

A clear and well-communicated accommodations process was also identified as a key DSO strength. Multiple participants emphasized the value of ‘proactive support + outreach at early stages’ (Disability service professional, European university, 9.2) for students with disabilities. Participants further described flexibility in documentation, ease of communication, strong collaboration, and the presence of a standardized procedure for seeking accommodations as important characteristics of an effective process.

Two participants from an Asian university highlighted the simplicity and clarity of their accommodations process as a particular strength. An administrator noted that their office has ‘less administrative burden’ and that the ‘process is simpler’ (2.1), while a related practitioner affirmed that their ‘accommodation process is clear & comparatively less complicated’ (2.2). While a streamlined and accessible process is critical to effective service provision, participants also underscored that the culture of the institution and the DSO itself both play a vital role in how accommodations are understood, communicated, and implemented.

3.1.4. Caring Culture for Success

Participants emphasized the importance of a caring culture within DSOs, one characterized by a desire to help, a shared commitment to improving student outcomes, and intentional efforts to reduce stigma. Practitioners and researchers described supporting students through expressions of care, celebrating their strengths, and cultivating inclusive practices. A DSO professional from a European university identified their efforts to ‘Celebrate autistic students and autistic staff. Raising autism acceptance across campus.’ (6.1) as a strength. Similarly, an administrator from a North American university highlighted a ‘Willingness to serve the students who come with a wide range of disability—positive attitude’ (7.2).

Participants described collaborative, multidisciplinary partnerships across departments as a key program strength. An administrator from an Asian university emphasized the ‘Close partnership among depts [departments] and staff in university to support SEN [special educational needs] students’ (1.2). Reinforcing the significance of institutional culture, a DSO professional from a European university listed ‘standardized/embedded inclusive practices for students’ (9.1) as one of their program strengths. These examples collectively underscore how a supportive, inclusive, and collaborative culture enhances the effectiveness of disability service provision.

3.2. Challenges

3.2.1. DSO Operations and Services

Practitioners and researchers serving students with disabilities reported facing several challenges within their own offices, particularly those related to limited DSO staff capacity and unclear policies and procedures. A DSO professional from a European university described the ‘Sheer volume of people asking for individual adjustments—workload pressures’ as a key challenge (9.2). Moreover, a DSO professional from an Asian university responded, ‘Burnout and overwork’ (3.2) to the question about challenges to staff. Participants also noted that gaps in knowledge can create additional difficulties in service delivery. Below, there is further explanation of this challenge in the theme ‘knowledge and attitudes’.

Unclear policies and procedures also pose significant challenges in the accommodations process. When the steps for determining eligibility for disability services such as documentation requirements, application procedures, development of support plans and accommodations, and denial or grievance processes are unclear or overly complex, DSO staff face additional burdens in navigating and implementing supports. As one researcher from a European university noted ‘Protocolos mal definidos [Poorly defined protocols]’ (10.1) hinder effective service provision. Some participants also raised concerns about the tension between individualized services and the desire for more standardized approaches. A related support provider from an Asian university explained ‘Individual differences and diversity of everyone’s needs. It’s difficult to implement standardized solutions.’ (5.1). While standardized inclusive practices were identified earlier as a program strength, the absence of consistent or scalable solutions for individualized support emerged as a challenge.

3.2.2. Institutional Priorities

Challenges for practitioners at the institutional level were often attributed to university policies and priorities that do not adequately center disability. An administrator from an Asian university emphasized the need for ‘university resources for necessary work in set-up phase’ (1.2) highlighting how insufficient investment in resources poses a barrier to effective service provision. Another administrator from an Asian university noted that ‘the university doesn’t put more importance on serving students [with] disabilities’ (5.2) reflecting a broader lack of institutional commitment. These findings suggest that institutional priorities, evidenced through policy decisions and funding allocations can lead to systemic challenges that affect both staff and students.

3.2.3. Knowledge and Attitudes

The attitudes and expectations of professional staff, professors and students also create significant challenges for implementing accommodations and promoting inclusion. An administrator from a North American university shared, ‘Some staff need to be more accepting of disabled students. Staff need training on best practices’ (7.3). Participants described resistance from professors and pushback from professional staff as routine obstacles encountered by DSO personnel. Across institutions, there was a pervasive lack of knowledge and awareness regarding disability, relevant policies, best practices, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). An administrator from another North American university highlighted these gaps stating there is ‘Not enough knowledge about not only about SWDs [Students with Disabilities] but also campus resources, how to address SWDs, policies, understanding of SWDs. Know what disability is, being open minded, understanding disability is real’ (13.1). Such attitudes and knowledge deficits contribute to systemic barriers that impede effective accommodations and inclusive practices.

Participants emphasized that training is essential to increase the knowledge, skills and confidence of professional staff. A professor from a European university described the ‘Necesidad de formación en inclusión y DUA [diseño universal de aprendizaje] [Need for training in inclusion and UDL (universal design for learning)’ (10.2). However, engagement in such training and broader inclusive initiatives is often inconsistent. As a DSO professional from a second European university summarized, challenges stem from the ‘attitudes of faculty, lack of knowledge, despite repeated offerings of trainings which are not taken up’ (6.2). These responses illustrate how insufficient participation in training contributes to ongoing barriers in creating inclusive campus environments.

3.3. Noted Nuance in Service Delivery

To ensure triangulation and deepen our understanding of these findings, we conducted member checks with participants and analyzed the journey maps for additional themes. The member check process yielded valuable feedback. In response to the identified strengths, a participant from a North American university noted ‘Además, por lo general no hay posibilidad de dar seguimiento sobre la pertinencia o efectividad del apoyo brindado [Furthermore, there is generally no possibility of monitoring the relevance or effectiveness of the support provided.]’

This comment underscores the importance of continually monitoring student outcomes and experiences, even when effective support structures are in place. Similarly, a participant from a European university stated, ‘Que se den los apoyos necesarios no es sinónimo de institución inclusiva.’ [Providing the necessary support is not synonymous with an inclusive institution].’ These reflections highlight a critical nuance: although DSOs and institutions may exhibit notable strengths, these do not necessarily translate into inclusive environments or experiences for students with disabilities.

Additional nuance emerged through the analysis of the journey maps. After coding the notes participants wrote next to each star (success) and square (challenge), we compared these insights with the practitioner-perceived successes and challenges to service delivery identified in their reflection documents. Several important themes surfaced that were not elicited in the questions about perceived strengths and challenges for staff. First, family support, whether through financial resources, understanding of disability, or participation in meetings was identified as a success for some students and a challenge when such support was absent. Participants also highlighted the role of students’ broader support networks: connections with community members and peers facilitated success while experiences of judgment or exclusion by peers posed challenges. Perhaps most notable were practitioner descriptions of student personal characteristics that impact success, including resilience, self-agency, study skills, and time management. Yet participants also critiqued institutional reliance on these traits. A DSO professional from a European university noted, ‘Too dependent on student self advocacy to identify unmet needs’ (9.3), highlighting concerns that institutions may place disproportionate responsibility on students rather than proactively identifying barriers and supports.

4. Discussion

This qualitative study employed a thematic analysis of written reflection responses generated following a journey mapping activity to explore the strengths and challenges of service provision as identified by international practitioners and researchers serving students with disabilities in higher education. The intent of this novel approach to data representation and reflection on student experiences was to validate, juxtapose, and expand the current understanding of service delivery across multiple international university contexts.

Findings from the current study address the limited research across international DSO contexts outside of North America (Madaus et al., 2024). The study amplifies diverse perspectives from 13 university teams across international settings including DSO staff, university administrators, researchers, and other related practitioners. Finally, by analyzing patterns across multiple international university contexts, this study identifies common strengths and challenges in supporting students with disabilities, contributing an important and much needed step toward advancing our collective understanding of how universities can improve access and service delivery in higher education.

4.1. Interpretation of Findings

The use of journey mapping methodology to trace perceived student experiences, from recruitment and matriculation on campus to semester progress, graduation, and employment, generated new insights into previously identified strengths and challenges, thereby refining our understanding in several critical areas.

4.1.1. Strong Programs Create Early Connection and Ensure Clarity

Initially, our research highlighted the importance of a culture of inclusion, service, and a student success mindset as key characteristics of strong programs (Faggella-Luby et al., in press; Mendoza et al., 2026). The current study refines this understanding by showing that DSO strengths include providing comprehensive, student-centered services supported by a clear and streamlined accommodations process grounded in a caring culture. Specifically, universities emphasized the intentional development of relationships with students. Such relationships were viewed as essential, beginning at recruitment to help students envision meaningful points of connection to the university and to build the trust necessary for disclosure and engagement with the accommodations process.

Participants’ reflection documents, summarizing practitioner perspectives of student experiences over time, also highlighted the importance of initiating early and consistent student interaction. Program strengths were characterized by a clear and simple accommodations process that frequently involved proactive support and early-stage outreach to ensure students could secure appropriate access. Processes were particularly valued when they were transparent, easy to navigate, and well-aligned, and when documentation requirements, decision-making, and communication were clear and consistent.

Another critical strength of student-centered programs is the presence of a caring culture that promotes student success. This culture is operationalized through efforts to reduce stigma associated with disability disclosure by celebrating students’ uniqueness and value. On one European campus, for example, autism acceptance initiatives included celebrating both students and staff with autism, thereby fostering a culture of connection across the university. Cultivating positive attitudes, not just tolerant attitudes, contributes to an environment of authentic welcome for all students, including those with disabilities, and reinforces inclusive practices within the broader campus culture.

Student-centered support was also reflected in the historically characteristic, but increasingly capacity-stretching, one-to-one support provided to meet student needs. Programs were viewed as most effective when DSO staff could leverage their individual skills and areas of expertise through direct individualized interactions with students. These one-to-one meetings promote trust, support shared problem solving, and deepen students’ connection to the universities culture of inclusion, ultimately increasing their sense of belonging and engagement.

4.1.2. Strong Programs Are Collaborative and Part of an Inclusive Institution

Prior research has established the critical role of intuitional support for DSO programs and personnel (Faggella-Luby et al., in press; Mendoza et al., 2026). The current study reframes this understanding by demonstrating that, when well supported, DSOs function as integral components of a collaborative and inclusive institution. Participants emphasized that cross-campus partnerships involving facilities staff, the registrar, and housing professionals enhanced DSO capacity to anticipate and address both potential and emergent challenges faced by students. Communication was a key factor for successful collaboration. Participants shared the importance of proactive and routine communication over reactive or isolated messages. This approach allowed DSO communication to be understood as part of the broader university messaging ecosystem, rather than as a series of stand-alone problem-solving interactions. Finally, ease of communication emerged as a key lever for relationship building and problem solving. In its absence, barriers arose when students or professors were required to search for information or struggled to identify appropriate channels for connecting with DSO staff, thereby diminishing their utility.

4.1.3. DSO Capacity Is Challenged by Growing Need

Staff serving students with disabilities face significant challenges within their office operations and service delivery, particularly related to staff capacity and unclear policies and procedures. As reflected in the growing body of research, the number of students with disabilities in higher education continues to increase, placing additional pressure on DSO personnel whose capacity is already stretched (Madaus et al., 2024). This pressure was echoed in the present findings, with participants disclosing in their responses both the ‘sheer volume’ of requests and associated ‘workload pressures,’ as well as ‘burnout and overwork.’ Collectively, this pattern underscores the value of attending to DSO staffing capacity as institutions respond to increasing and more complex demands for delivering disability-related services.

4.1.4. Unclear Policies Challenge Service Delivery

Another challenge arises when office policies and procedures, unlike those in strong programs, are unclear or overly complicated regarding the provision of accommodations. Difficulties can emerge at any stage of the process, from documentation requirements to determining appropriate accommodations or designing a support plan. These complexities led some participants, including one researcher from a European university to question whether more standardized procedures might improve efficiency.

Although standardization may seem at odds with the field’s long-standing commitment to individualized, student-centered support, the suggestion offers an opportunity for balancing efficiency with personalization. When standardization takes the form of clear and consistent procedures throughout the service delivery model (i.e., from requesting accommodations, communicating decisions, and ensuring implementation), unnecessary administrative complexity is reduced in favor of more capacity for focusing on individual students’ access needs. For instance, many students require alternative testing environments.

Offices with a standardized initial protocol for considering accommodations across a range of disability-related needs can streamline the process for most students, thus enabling staff to focus on tailoring support for additional needs that require more specialized attention. Such an approach may enhance both access and equity by fostering consistent, efficient practices without compromising individualized support. Finally, such procedural efficiencies should support, rather than replace, individualized consideration consistent with applicable institutional policies and legal requirements.

4.1.5. Misalignment of DSO and University Priorities Creates Challenges

As noted above, DSO programs do not exist in isolation but are influenced by the institutional context. Participants noted that, within the larger university system, misaligned priorities can heighten challenges related to the inclusion of students with disabilities. Although disability in higher education is not a new issue, most universities have long histories that predate inclusive practice. Moreover, staff, faculty, and peer attitudes towards disability can significantly impact service delivery and student experiences (Carballo et al., 2026; Freer, 2023). In fact, shifting institutional priorities may at times run counter to DSOs’ inclusive efforts. Findings of this study suggest that positioning DSO services within a broader student success framework may help align the disability service purview within broader university priorities, possibly strengthening institutional support for inclusive practice. From our perspective, this framing might also extend student success to include workforce development, an increasingly important consideration within broader educational outcomes.

4.1.6. Knowledge and Attitudes of Professors/Professional Staff Present Foundational Challenge

Participants highlighted that the knowledge, awareness, and attitudes of professors and professional staff, including resistance and pushback, remain foundational challenges in supporting students with disabilities. Just as university priorities may overlook disability inclusion, most professors and professional staff receive little to no professional preparation related to working with students with disabilities. While some may have personal experience with disability through family or friends, professional training provides the breadth and depth needed to understand the wide range of disabilities represented on campus.

Such preparation is essential for highlighting student needs and barriers to learning, helping to ‘demystify’ (Ladau, 2021) and ‘demythify’ (e.g., Przymus, 2024) misconceptions, and equipping professors and professional staff with the ability to promote and provide equitable and inclusive practices. Given the variety of interactions professors and professional staff are likely to have with differing disabilities over time, this knowledge is critical. Ironically, as one DSO professional from a European university observed, the first challenge is often simply getting individuals to attend and engage in these training sessions. Thus, the very people whose understanding is essential to effective inclusion practice are frequently the least likely to have access to, or participate in, the professional learning necessary to achieve it.

4.2. Limitations

This study includes perspectives from a range of universities and practitioners to provide a picture of service delivery across multiple international contexts. However, several limitations should be noted, and the findings should not be generalized to all settings. First, all participants had some exposure to our prior research; some had participated in earlier focus groups, and all received a presentation of themes identified during the focus groups as part of the introduction to the pre-conference workshop. This provided a common baseline for all participants prior to starting the activity. Furthermore, as part of the activity, participants were given the opportunity to discuss their journey maps with colleagues from their own institution. Although such discussions may have influenced participant responses, our-within university analyses revealed a range of perspectives, suggesting that individuals still contributed unique insights. Additionally, the successes and challenges identified through the journey mapping activity and subsequent reflection document include unique themes from what was identified via focus groups (Faggella-Luby et al., in press; Mendoza et al., 2026).

We also acknowledge that the convenience sampling approach and the specific professional backgrounds of participants may have shaped their respective contributions. As an extension of our previous work, this study represents a step toward a more comprehensive understanding of disability service delivery across international contexts. To further extend our understanding of students’ journeys accessing DSO services in higher education, student participants will be crucial. In this case, we had access to participants who work in direct or related service roles and our future work will include sharing this methodology with practitioners so that they might use it to collect student-generated journey maps.

It is also possible that our own biases could have influenced the identification or interpretation of themes. To mitigate this risk and ensure that the themes were not disproportionately shaped by our context or experiences, we analyzed the distribution of quotations from U.S. universities across the thematic categories. For any themes in which U.S. perspectives were more heavily represented, we intentionally incorporated quotation evidence from international universities to ensure more balanced representation within the findings. Additionally, we employed three validation strategies to further limit potential bias: (a) team member review comparing findings with transcripts, (b) journey map triangulation as part of the analysis, and (c) member checks with participants. Together, these measures were undertaken to strengthen the credibility of the analysis.

4.3. Implications for Practice (DSOs and Institutions)

The thematic analysis of written reflection responses generated following a journey mapping activity, as a methodology, is not intended for broad generalization. However, it does surface several critical areas for reflection among DSO staff and institutional leaders. Several actionable strategies emerged, beginning with the need for increased professional learning for both professors and professional staff regarding the characteristics of students with disabilities and the methods that might enhance their access. This was a salient finding, and we believe the nature of such professional learning is an important consideration, particularly given the lack of pedagogical preparation among most professors.

More novel, were participants’ reflections about institutional alignment and standardization. Participant reflections regarding institutional alignment and standardization further suggest the value in strategically allocating resources and systematically examining components that contribute to effective and efficient DSO service delivery. Additionally, recommendations for selective standardization, where efficiency is improved without compromising individual needs, may help improve the accommodations process, promote equity, and reduce stress on professional staff.

Clear and well-communicated accommodations policies align naturally with this standardization. Participants noted that integrating such transparency into early engagement provides families and students clear signals about the university climate and commitment to inclusion.

On a more pragmatic level, participants suggested that DSO strengths are characterized by high rates of engagement with all campus actors who interact with students, clear and proactive communication on a routine basis, and the strategic alignment of DSO staff strengths and ‘funds of knowledge’ with student needs. Regarding this latter point, is the key opportunity to cross-train staff so that when capacity is stretched, multiple DSO staff have the relevant expertise to provide effective support. This strategy also intersects with broader campus engagement; inviting representatives from various departments to share their knowledge with DSO staff not only builds collective skill and understanding but also strengthens interdepartmental relationships. Such collaboration ensures that, when students with disabilities are involved, it is not the first point of contact between departments, and instead the groundwork already exists for coordinated and efficient support.

Finally, DSO directors and institutional leadership might consider developing a mutually agreed upon set of metrics for tracking student engagement with DSO staff. By incorporating both administrative perspectives, DSO leaders can more accurately convey the student demand across the semester, academic year, and calendar year—patterns that directly affect DSO staffing capacity and workload. Once collected and reviewed, these shared metrics can serve as a mechanism for demonstrating need for additional DSO staffing or resources.

4.4. Implications for Policy

The international context of this study exists at the intersection of several professional and program standards. Whether guided by AHEAD, CRPD, CAS, EUni4All, or other frameworks, the findings of this study have global relevance. First, a crosswalk of these standards might highlight the practical implications discussed above, particularly those emphasizing the value of welcoming, engaging, and transparently serving students with disabilities. Although universities worldwide differ in how they craft their policies and practices, many share core commitments to recruitment, retention, graduation and employment. One example is the value of ensuring DSO and student representation on university committees that shape institutional priorities or strategic pillars (Association on Higher Education and Disability, 2021; Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2023; EUni4All-Network, 2022). Including DSO leaders and students with disabilities in strategic planning processes affirms the institution’s responsibility to center all students, including students with disabilities, in its goals and decision making.

Given participants’ emphasis on the knowledge and attitudes of frontline professors and professional staff, increased engagement in disability-related professional learning represents a possible area for institutional attention. One policy approach an institution might consider is embedding expectations for inclusive disability learning within existing professional development structures. For example, participation by professors might be recognized within existing merit or evaluation processes in institutions where such mechanisms are appropriate. This suggestion acts as a potential response by the institution to the professional learning and engagement challenges identified by study participants. We do note that this is speculation as no intervention of such kind was tested in the present study. Future research could study whether such a policy increases professor participation in professional learning, and whether increased participation impacts student outcomes.

4.5. Implications for Research

Future research might probe more deeply into DSO staff capacity issues, particularly regarding how time demands can be documented and communicated to institutional leadership. Additionally, the cross-context analysis in this study offers an important initial step toward understanding challenges to service delivery. Subsequent studies might focus on participant samples within a single country or region and then examine differences and similarities across universities that vary in size, funding model (publicly or privately funded), or institutional age. Future research might extend this work by comparing DSO responses with those of a random sample of students, thus offering a richer understanding of service delivery and its impact.

Alternatively, future research might focus on analyzing the standards themselves. At present, no universal framework exists for evaluating disability services across international contexts. A deeper examination of standards could help determine which standards are most helpful in developing and revising programs.

Finally, while policies continue to evolve and research on higher education and disability is expanding, there remains a dearth of data-based studies on instruction and interventions that address the challenges faced by students, as well as challenges encountered by DSOs across institutions (Madaus et al., 2024). The methodology employed in this study offers a promising avenue for identifying strengths and areas of concern in service delivery. It can be adapted for use with students at individual institutions to deepen understanding of their experiences and inform program improvement.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the global expansion of disability services in higher education continues to warrant ongoing examination. Through the analysis of participant reflections generated following a journey mapping activity, we offer a promising approach to better understand the strengths and challenges faced by DSO directors and staff across international contexts. This methodology has surfaced helpful reflection on practitioner perceptions of the student journey, highlighting practical policy and research considerations. Moreover, the findings generate hypotheses and practice considerations requiring investigation in larger and more contextually differentiated studies. What remains is for the field, and the global higher education community, to engage in their own reflection and determine what role they can serve in improving access and ultimately outcomes for students with disabilities.