Mobility of Students with Disabilities Among Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Southern Chile: Barriers and Facilitators

Abstract

Student mobility in Higher Education Institutions (HIEs) significantly contributes to students’ personal and academic development. However, participation of people with disabilities remains limited due to various barriers. This study explores the perceptions of students with disabilities regarding mobility within universities in southern Chile. A descriptive qualitative approach was used, and semi-structured interviews and a focus group with 15 undergraduate students with diverse types of disabilities were conducted. Data analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis. The results revealed that students with disabilities prefer one-semester mobility experiences, typically near the end of their studies. Identified barriers include a lack of physical and digital accessibility, insufficient implementation of reasonable adjustments in the teaching-learning process, and poor coordination in mobility management between institutions. Additionally, specific requirements emerged depending on the type of disability, such as the need for sign language interpreters for deaf individuals and additional medical insurance, subsidies for personal assistants, or accessible transportation for those with reduced mobility. This study highlights the importance of adopting inclusive and proactive policies to facilitate student mobility for individuals with disabilities and promote an accessibility ecosystem that involves all institutional stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Student mobility is a voluntary movement towards an educational institution different from the home institution [1]. The literature indicates that it offers cultural, employability, and personal benefits [1,2]. The advantages of mobility for Higher Education Institutions (hereafter HEIs) result in expanding possibilities for knowledge transfer and network creation [3]. In turn, experience in Higher Education contributes to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly goal number ten, which aims to reduce inequalities among historically excluded groups, such as people with disabilities [4,5,6]. In this regard, the Erasmus+ program, a European Commission mobility initiative specifically for people with disabilities seeking to engage in mobility between HEIs within that continent, reported in 2019 that only 0.36% of people with disabilities participated in mobility [7]. The Universia Foundation also highlights the low participation of Spanish students with disabilities in mobility experiences, preferring national over international mobility [8].

Thus, the study aimed to identify the barriers perceived by students with disabilities to engage in mobility between HEIs in southern Chile and to determine the reasonable adjustments needed from HEIs and the Chilean state to facilitate their participation. The results are expected to guide national HEI mobility programs and public policies regarding the equitable mobility of people with disabilities in higher education.

1.1. Barriers to the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

Among the reasons for the low participation of students with disabilities, beyond a lack of interest in experiencing mobility, the main actor is the presence of barriers to inclusion in higher education. International research highlights that the lack of coherent national and institutional strategies continues to create organizational, cultural, and educational barriers for students with disabilities in higher education [6]. According to [9], an educational inclusion barrier is any difficulty that prevents a person with a disability from participating on equal terms with their educational environment [10]. The author identifies the main barriers affecting the educational system as organizational, cultural, and educational or knowledge-based. Organizational barriers derive from the absence of public policies that ensure inclusion within educational institutions, while cultural barriers are linked to beliefs, stereotypes, and prejudices toward individuals or groups, frequently resulting from ignorance or limited opportunities for social interaction. Educational or knowledge barriers, in turn, shape pedagogical practices and are conceived as outcomes of both organizational and cultural barriers.

1.2. Student Mobility for People with Disabilities: Main Barriers to a Safe Experience

Student mobility programs allow temporary study at other institutions, nationally and internationally. This experiences, ranging from a few weeks to a full academic year, enrich academic and personal development. According to [4], student mobility provides students with tools to adapt to an increasingly globalized world. However, for people with disabilities, it presents multiple barriers that hinder their academic, social, and emotional participation [8].

Access barriers in higher education for students with disabilities manifest in various dimensions, affecting their educational experience and enriching experiences such as student mobility. Barriers are not only related to infrastructure, but also to the discontinuity of support services when students cross borders [6]. Regarding inclusion barriers, a documentary study on complaints from students with disabilities against HEIs in the United States [11] identified three significant barriers:

• Physical access barriers: These are described as issues accessing historic buildings that, due to their heritage status, paradoxically lack accessibility features (e.g., no lifts or entrances/exits far from main access points). Additionally, some universities do not have accessible accommodations for students with disabilities, and city transportation may also be inadequately adapted for individuals with reduced mobility.
• Attitudinal barriers: These reflect discrimination from teaching staff who provide less support or fail to provide adapted materials, actions that primarily affect individuals with non-visible disabilities.
• Inflexibility of academic plans and programs: This makes it more time-consuming for students with disabilities to complete their degrees, or in some cases, they may even lose the opportunity to graduate [11].

Similarly, an international study identified similar obstacles, such as lack of continuity in rights, medical care, and support; difficulties with air and local transportation; additional costs and complex administrative procedures; and a lack of coordinated information at the national and international levels [5]. Furthermore, ref. [12] found that students with disabilities in India face multiple barriers, ranging from inadequate physical infrastructure to negative attitudes from teaching staff, suggesting a need for a thorough review of inclusive policies to improve the participation and academic success of these students.

Other studies have also mentioned the lack of physical and digital accessibility in host institutions as one of the main barriers to mobility for this group [13,14,15]. Moreover, the absence of specific scholarship programs and coordinated support units between home and host institutions complicates the mobility and inclusion of these students [16]. Also, additional financial costs, administrative burdens, and insufficient access to information systems are consistently identified as major obstacles for students with disabilities [6]. Also, the absence of international coordination between home and host institutions leaves students to rely on fragmented and inconsistent support.

These barriers highlight the need for more inclusive policies and practices that promote equal opportunities in higher education.

1.3. Physical Access Barriers

Physical access barriers include a lack of accessible transportation, economic difficulties, family challenges, medical concerns, university workload, negative attitudes, and structural issues related to campus infrastructure [17]. Regarding transportation, specific problems stand out, such as the transportation of assistance dogs and restrictions on the transportation of medications, among others [5,6]. Furthermore, transportation within destination locations is often inaccessible, not just for student transportation.

Creating an accessibility ecosystem in higher education requires coordination among multiple stakeholders, including students, teaching staff, and disability services offices. A significant barrier is the lack of digital accessibility, which requires technological and organizational solutions to ensure students can access information and accessible formats about mobility scholarships, available spots, and reasonable adjustments offered by HEIs to make this experience safe.

1.4. Access Barriers in the Teaching-Learning Process (Attitudinal Barriers and Inflexibility of Programs)

The provision of reasonable adjustments is essential for the effective inclusion of students with disabilities in mobility programs. These adjustments include adapting educational materials, providing interpreters, and modifying physical facilities to ensure equitable access. In this sense, participation in mobility is particularly affected when there is a lack of reasonable, coordinated adjustments between countries and continuity of accommodations [5,6]. According to Law No. 20.422 in Chile, higher education institutions are required to guarantee these adjustments, although, in practice, their implementation remains insufficient [18]. Research suggests that institutions must adopt a proactive stance in implementing inclusive policies that ensure the right to equitable and quality higher education for all students, regardless of their disability conditions.

1.5. Mobility Experiences of Students with Disabilities Abroad

Numerous studies have documented the experiences of students with disabilities in different international contexts, providing a comparative view of the barriers and facilitators in educational inclusion. In Finland, a study found that assessment practices represent barriers to inclusion. Evaluations are predominantly designed for the ideal student without disabilities, placing students with disabilities at a disadvantage [5].

In the United Kingdom, ref. [19] highlighted that students with disabilities face issues related to the quality of the learning experience, independent living, and the impact of university life. Societal beliefs often perceive people with disabilities as inherently disadvantaged, which minimizes or limits their ability to thrive in the university setting.

A study that collected testimonies from students on different continents highlights that many find creative solutions, but they depend on chance and institutional will rather than clear systems [5]. As in Finland and the United Kingdom, this research shows that experiences depend heavily on the context and the coordination (or lack thereof) between institutions.

Similarly, ref. [20] described students with disabilities deciding whether to disclose their individual needs. When they disclose their disability status, they must negotiate with their professors to receive reasonable adjustments and work twice as hard as other students to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in the university context.

These studies underscore the importance of HEIs attending to the needs of people with disabilities and being better prepared to provide a university experience that fosters knowledge development, social relationships, and a sense of belonging to society. Ref. [21] analyzed how coordination among students, teaching staff, and support service offices for people with disabilities can improve accessibility in higher education. The authors suggest that technology can play a crucial role in enhancing communication and transparency and providing reasonable adjustments through inclusive apps or platforms, thereby facilitating the creation of a more efficient and effective accessibility ecosystem. Also, the evidence illustrates that mobility experiences vary widely depending on the degree of collaboration and preparedness of the institutions involved [6].

Other factors supporting better inclusion include subsidies for accessible transportation, improved signage, teaching staff training on disabilities and reasonable adjustments. International reports also highlight the importance of considering the specific needs of people with non-visible disabilities and promoting an inclusive institutional culture that values diversity and equity [8]. On the other hand, testimonies collected across different continents have shown that while some students manage to find creative solutions, these often depend on chance and goodwill rather than systemic measures [6]. In this sense, it is valuable to highlight the importance of listening to the voices of the students.

For all the above reasons, the research questions are (1) What are the main barriers and enabling factors at a personal and institutional level that hold them back or motivate students with disabilities to experience a national mobility in HEIs? And (2) What reasonable measures or adjustments do they think universities in southern Chile should implement so that they feel safe and motivated to undertake a national mobility experience there?

2. Materials and Methods

This study is a qualitative investigation based on a descriptive approach. A qualitative methodology was selected because it provides a deep and rich understanding of human experiences, allowing the research team to capture participants’ perspectives and meanings of their lived experiences [22]. This technique was employed to identify the perceptions and experiences of students with disabilities regarding student mobility in higher education institutions (HEIs) in southern Chile. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to help uncover what is important and meaningful to participants, including their meanings, perspectives, and interpretations of how they see and experience the world. A focus group was also held to collect detailed and contextualized data on suggestions for improving HEIs in southern Chile to provide safe mobility conditions [23].

2.1. Participants

The study sample consisted of 15 undergraduate students with disabilities, selected through purposive sampling for ease of access to the field of study. The inclusion criteria, derived from the research questions, were being an undergraduate student with a disability enrolled in an HEI in southern Chile aged between 18 and 25. Most participants were women (87%), and the distribution of disabilities included physical disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, hearing impairments, and visual impairments.

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants in Semi-structured Interviews.

	Gender	Age	Origin HEI/City of Study	Type of Disability	Period in Which They Would Like to Do Mobility	Duration of Mobility	Reason for Choosing Mobility HEI
1	Male	24	Public Non-State (G9 Network)/Concepción	Physical	End of the program	One semester	Prestige of HEI
2	Female	22	Public Non-State (G9 Network)/Concepción	Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)	Beginning of the program	One semester	Prestige of HEI
3	Female	23	State (SU)/Talca	Auditory	End of the program	One semester	Prestige of HEI
4	Female	19	Public Non-State (G9 Network)/Los Angeles	Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)	Mid-program	One semester	HEI is close to the city of residence
5	Female	23	Public Non-State (G9 Network)/Los Angeles	Visual	Mid-program	One semester	Prestige of HEI
6	Female	25	Private U/Temuco	Auditory	Beginning of the program	One semester	HEI with support unit for people with disabilities
7	Female	23	Private U/Valdivia	Physical	End of the program	One month	HEI is close to the city of residence
8	Female	25	State (SU)/Puerto Montt	Physical	Mid-program	One semester	HEI with support unit for people with disabilities
9	Female	25	State (SU)/Punta Arenas	Physical	End of the program	One month	HEI is close to the city of residence
10	Female	22	State (SU)/Coyhaique	Physical	Beginning of the program	One academic year	HEI is close to the city of residence

Note: Own elaboration. HEI = higher education institution.

presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the students who participated in the semi-structured interviews, and

Table 2. Characteristics of Participants in the Focus Group.

	Gender	Age	HEI/City	Year of Study	Type of Disability	Period in Which They Would Like to Do Mobility	Duration of Mobility
1	Female	23	State U. (SU)/Talca	5	Auditory	End of the program	One semester
2	Male	18	Public Non-State (G9 Network)/Concepción	1	Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)	End of the program	One semester
3	Female	25	State U. (SU)/Valdivia	4	Physical	End of the program	One semester
4	Female	22	Public Non-State (G9 Network)/Concepción	4	Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)	Beginning of the program	One semester
5	Female	18	Public Non-State (G9 Network)/Los Angeles	1	Physical	End of the program	One semester

details the characteristics of the students who participated in the focus group.

2.2. Data Collection

Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and focus groups. It was decided to diversify the data collection techniques to capture both detailed individual experiences and to observe points of convergence among peers. Students from the 20 national HEIs in the south of Chile, which declare having students with disabilities were invited to participate via email [24]. Ten students responded to the call, and their interviews were conducted online using the Teams platform between January and December 2023. The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 min. A script of expert-validated questions was designed to explore perceived barriers and facilitators in depth. The interviews were recorded and transcribed for later analysis (script is available in Appendix A). A pilot test with two students from the Bío Bío region was conducted to adjust the questions. The remaining dimensions from the interview were used in the focus group question script, which was held in June 2023. The focus group invitation was made through existing support units or programs at national HEIs in the southern part of the country (from the O’Higgins region to the Magallanes region). The focus group was also conducted online, lasting an hour and a half, and five students participated. These interviews were recorded and transcribed for better understanding.

2.3. Data Analysis Technique

The data analysis utilized a deductive-inductive approach, following [25] reflexive thematic analysis framework. This method is particularly well-suited for identifying underlying themes based on the data and applying pre-established theoretical frameworks. The analysis process comprised six phases: becoming familiar with the data through tasks such as transcribing (if necessary), reading and re-reading the data, and noting initial ideas; systematically coding to group relevant data for each code; generating initial themes by grouping codes into potential themes and gathering relevant data for each potential theme; developing and reviewing themes by verifying whether they work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the complete data set (Level 2) to generate a thematic map; defining themes by continuously analyzing to refine the details of each theme and the overall narrative that the analysis tells, which resulted in clear definitions and names for each theme; and finally, writing the report.

The last step involved intertwining the analytical narrative and supporting data extracts, primarily conducted by the authors. Throughout the analysis, each researcher maintained a reflective journal. This was used to track thoughts, feelings, and interpretations throughout the analytical process, ensuring transparency and rigor.

Below, we present two chapters with the detailed results of the thematic analysis and the focus group. The findings in both areas highlight the identified barriers in three main dimensions: (1) physical and digital accessibility, (2) reasonable adjustments in the teaching-learning process, and (3) inclusive mobility policies and management. An emerging fourth dimension included (4) specific requirements based on the type of disability presented. From these four key dimensions, 8 categories were identified from the thematic analysis and 8 distinct categories from the focus group.

3. Thematic Analysis Results

The thematic analysis revealed that students with disabilities in the study prefer to undertake mobility experiences for one semester (13 students, representing 80%), preferably at the end of their studies (8 students, representing 53%), considering the various barriers they face.

Table 3. Dimensions and categories emerging from the thematic analysis and focus group.

Dimensions	Categories Emerging from the Thematic Analysis	Categories Emerging from the Focus Group
1. Physical and Digital Accessibility Conditions of the Host City and/or University.	3.1.1. Lack of accessible transportation in the host city. 3.1.2. Difficulties related to the accessibility of buildings at the host institution.	4.1.1. Improve and/or subsidize accessible transportation for individuals with physical disabilities. 4.1.2. Improve the signage in receiving cities. 4.1.3. Have accessible student accommodations near HEIs. 4.1.4. Provide accessible furniture.
2. Reasonable Adjustments or Accommodations in the Teaching-Learning Process.	3.2.1. Lack of assurance regarding the implementation of reasonable adjustments or accommodations in teaching methods.	4.2.1. Train teaching staff on disability and reasonable adjustments.
3. Inclusive Mobility Policies and Management.	3.3.1. Lack of a specific scholarship and support programs for the mobility of people with disabilities. 3.3.2. Lack of presence and/or coordinated work of support units for people with disabilities between the sending and receiving HEIs. 3.3.3. Lack of information about mobility programs.	4.3.1. Promote the presence and coordinated work of support units for people with disabilities in sending and receiving HEIs.
4. Specific Requirements by Type of Disability Presented.	3.4.1. Lack of a sign language interpreter for Chilean Sign Language (LSCh) users at the host HEI. * 3.4.2. Mobility costs for people with physical disabilities are not considered. *	4.4.1. Hire interpreters in Chilean sign language. * 4.4.2. Consider reasonable adjustments for people with autism and non-observable disabilities. *

Note: * Emerging Dimensions and Categories. Source: Own elaboration.

presents the results of the thematic analysis from interviews conducted and the categories emerging from the focus group.

3.1. Barriers in the Dimension of Physical and Digital Accessibility of the Host City and/or University

3.1.1. Lack of Accessible Transportation in the Host City

The characteristics of the cities, especially in the southernmost regions, present extensive distances between rural and urban areas and extreme weather conditions. Additionally, the lack of accessible public transportation is perceived as a significant barrier, especially for people with physical disabilities:

Interviewee 9: “The conditions are not there in a shared taxi or a bus; everything is fast. They do not wait. Moreover, that is mostly my difficulty: moving around alone, without anyone.”

Interviewee 10: “In Chile, no public transportation is adapted. Maybe in Santiago, but not here. […] The truth is, at least in my experience, the further south you go, the less accessible the space, the environment, the context becomes because, historically, the universities in southern Chile are more recent.”

3.1.2. Difficulties Related to the Accessibility of Buildings in the Host Institution

The infrastructure of some buildings and the distance between them are perceived as significant barriers:

Interviewee 3: “When I entered university, one of my biggest impediments was the issue of echo, and for example, my university has very old classrooms where the echo, I swear, does not allow you to hear anything at all.”

Interviewee 8: “I think universal access, especially in Chile, cannot be modified because they are national heritage sites, they have much protection, so there are places that are falling apart. So, I feel that one of the barriers would be the issue of accessibility.”

3.2. Barriers in the Dimension of Reasonable Adjustments or Accommodations in the Teaching-Learning Process

Lack of Assurance Regarding the Implementation of Reasonable Adjustments or Accommodations in the Teaching-Learning Process

Students’ experiences revealed injustice alarmingly, not only among Chilean students but also in developed countries like Finland [20]. It is important to note that in the national context, Law 20.422 guarantees reasonable adjustments in Article 24:

“Any person or institution, private or public, that offers student services […] must make the necessary adjustments […] to ensure equal opportunities.” However, some teachers do not always perceive these adjustments as a right.

Interviewee 3: “[…] I asked the professor to speak louder, and he told me he would not speak louder because he had been speaking the same way for years […] I told the progre director, ‘This is happening to me; I do not like it at all; this is really bad,’ and they sent the professor an audio system with a microphone for his classes. He never used the system, and the university never did anything.”

Interviewee 6: “I was not evaluated when I enrolled; they accepted me without any problems, but when I started classes, the teachers did not provide the support I needed.”

3.3. Barriers in the Normative Dimension and Inclusive Management of Mobility

3.3.1. Lack of a Specific Scholarship and Support Program for the Mobility of People with Disabilities

The lack of scholarship programs and specific support in mobility programs is significantly higher for students with disabilities. In Chile, the estimated cost for a person with a disability in higher education institutions (HEIs) is three times higher than that of a student without a disability [26]. This is also stated by one of the participants:

Interviewee 10: “[Participating in mobility]…when you have a disability and lack the resources to meet the needs that it implies, you automatically exclude yourself, even if you want to and if you meet the requirements, you cannot do it because you cannot afford it.”

3.3.2. Lack of Presence and/or Coordinated Work of Support Units for People with Disabilities Between the Sending and Receiving HEIs

The lack of coordination between the support units of the originating and receiving HEIs is a significant barrier. One of the participants mentions that HEIs have not considered the importance of support programs to provide the necessary assistance so that the university experience is as expected:

Interviewee 2: “Well, normally, in primary and secondary education, there are these types of PIE (School Integration Program) programs, but they are not present in higher education, and one is left on their own. There could be something similar to PIE in higher education.”

3.3.3. The Lack of Clear and Accessible Information About Mobility Programs Limits Student Participation

Students also stated that an important limitation has been the lack of clear and accessible information:

Interviewee 3: “[About mobility programs] that lack of information can be avoided with a registry that could be interconnected with the universities that require it, that is it. […] I remember that the mobility system was among public universities; when I tried to apply for mobility, it was only public universities, and I thought it could be very positive if all those universities shared this disability registry with the consent of each student.”

Interviewee 4: “[About mobility programs]…I do not know the periods for doing that [mobility].”

3.4. Barriers in the Dimension of Specific Requirements by Type of Disability

3.4.1. Lack of a Sign Language Interpreter for Chilean Sign Language (LSCh) Users at the Host HEI

The lack of Chilean Sign Language (LSCH) interpreters is a significant barrier for deaf students, making it difficult for them to participate actively in classes and programs:

Interview 8: “Another barrier for deaf people is that there are not many interpreters, so you have to think about who will interpret.”

3.4.2. Mobility Costs for People with Physical Disabilities Are Not Considered

Accessible transportation expenses and additional costs are not considered, making participation difficult:

Interviewee 1: “At least I have never taken the bus since my accident; I get around by car, but my dad drives me. I travel by car…in another city, I do not know how I would manage…”

Interviewee 10: “In my case, too, for example, I needed a support person because, as I do not have strength, I rely on a support person for all daily tasks, and if I leave here, that also needs to be paid for, it is an extra cost for me.”

4. Focus Group Results

Table 3 presents the results of the categories emerging from the focus group.

4.1. Physical and Digital Accessibility Conditions of the Host City and/or University

4.1.1. Improve and/or Subsidize Accessible Transportation for Individuals with Physical Disabilities

To improve or subsidize accessible transportation for individuals with physical disabilities, as described in the individual interview results, the lack of physical and digital accessibility is a significant problem because it affects their autonomy:

Participant 5: “Primarily, it is about transportation; otherwise, one feels chained and dependent on someone else.”

4.1.2. Improve the Signage of Receiving Cities

Improving signage in host cities would allow for better orientation and adaptation to the host city:

Participant 2: “So, to avoid things like this, perhaps some way for people arriving in a certain city to be informed about public transportation within that area.”

4.1.3. Have Accessible Student Accommodations near HEIs

Accessible university residences close to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) would provide a safer stay adapted to their needs:

Participant 1: “[Necessary conditions for mobility] I do not know, a place to live, but where there are also conditions for people with disabilities.”

4.1.4. Provide Accessible Furniture

Providing accessible furniture offers an inclusive experience in the host institution:

Participant 1: “I feel that all universities should have at least one room equipped with a microphone and an audio system.”

4.2. Reasonable Adjustments or Adaptations in the Teaching-Learning Process

Training Teaching Staff on Disabilities and Reasonable Adjustments

Participants also stated that teachers should make adjustments:

Participant 1: “I cannot take an oral test if I do not have a hearing aid with batteries because I will not understand the teacher. Furthermore, I think it is important for them to consider that, so that would be an adjustment that should be considered for me…”

4.3. Inclusive Management and Regulations for Mobility

Promote the Presence and/or Coordinated Work of Support Units for People with Disabilities from the Origin and Host HEIs

Some of the participants expressed the need for coordinated work between HEIs:

Participant 5: “There needs to be some kind of contact between universities, like ‘we are going to have a person with a disability. We need this.”

Participant 4: “I do not know; for example, at my university, certain arrangements, certain things need to be made, and it would be great if the other university I go to could also have them.”

Participant 2: “There should be the willingness to have a support unit, at least conditions that can provide the conditions some students need.”

4.4. Specific Requirements by Type of Disability Presented

4.4.1. Hiring Chilean Sign Language Interpreters in HEIs

Participants also declare the need for accommodations for deaf students:

Participant 1: “The university should have sign language interpreters.”

4.4.2. Consider Reasonable Adjustments for People on the Autism Spectrum and Those with Non-Observable Disabilities

One participant affirmed that, from their experience, there is a need for consideration for adjustment for people on the autism spectrum and those with invisible disabilities:

Participant 2: “…Yes, also, from my experience, the issue of invisibility of certain conditions happens a lot. […] Sometimes, when conditions are not entirely visible, like in my case, being neurodivergent, the opportunity to be understood is not always there; you have to keep saying, ‘Hello, I am xxx, and I have this,’ and that is a problem.”

In summary, the results from the thematic analysis and focus group indicate that students with disabilities prefer short-term mobility, typically one semester at the end of their studies, due to the barriers they face. These obstacles cluster into four dimensions: physical and digital accessibility, reasonable adjustments in teaching–learning, inclusive management and policies, and disability-specific requirements. Accessibility challenges include inadequate transportation, poorly adapted infrastructure, and limited accessible housing. Pedagogical barriers arise from the inconsistent implementation of reasonable adjustments and insufficient faculty awareness, despite legal guarantees. At the institutional level, the absence of scholarships, scarce financial support, lack of coordination between universities, and unclear information further restrict participation. Additionally, students emphasize the need for disability-specific measures, such as sign language interpreters, recognition of invisible conditions, and financial support for extra costs, highlighting the urgent need for more inclusive and equitable mobility practices.

5. Discussion

Both the thematic and the focus group analysis identified the same barriers but differed in focus and depth. The interviews revealed structural and attitudinal barriers and were clearly focused on problem barriers. In contrast, the focus group was more solution-oriented, emphasizing the need to improve accessibility.

Additionally, while the thematic analysis highlighted the lack of interpreters and financial burdens for students with physical disabilities, the focus group expanded the discussion by calling for recognition of non-visible disabilities and tailored accommodations. Together, both sources complement each other by linking lived experiences of exclusion with collective proposals for more inclusive and equitable practices.

Specifically, this research shows that students with disabilities are interested in participating in student mobility experiences, although they find them challenging. The choice of the host institution tends to be more based on accessibility and disability support units than on academic quality, highlighting the presence of structural barriers to the inclusion of this group [15,27].

The barriers identified in this study align with those observed in international research. For instance, note that many students do not identify as disabled despite facing significant barriers when accessing services and reasonable adjustments [2]. This perception of the illegitimacy of the needed help and the requirement for medical evidence are critical obstacles affecting students’ willingness to seek support. Some students choose not to declare their disability due to stigma, leading them to strive to appear as students who do not need support [15].

Regarding physical and digital accessibility, students in this study described significant obstacles such as the lack of adapted public transport, inaccessible university buildings, and limited accessible housing. Similar findings have been reported internationally, where inaccessible transport systems, restrictive airline policies, and the absence of continuity in assistive services hinder students’ autonomy during mobility experiences [6,17]. Studies in Europe and Asia also note that inaccessible infrastructure and information systems remain structural barriers, even in institutions with inclusion policies [13,14,15].

In terms of reasonable adjustments, participants’ experiences revealed inconsistency in the implementation of accommodations and resistance from faculty members. These findings are consistent with evidence from Finland, India, and the United Kingdom, where insufficient teacher training and lack of coordination between home and host institutions impede equitable participation [11,17]. The absence of cross-border mechanisms to ensure continuity of accommodations, as emphasized in the Inclusive Mobility TAG report, exacerbates this problem [5].

With respect to institutional and policy barriers, the lack of scholarships and coordination between universities in Chile mirrors international challenges identified by European and Latin American studies, which point to fragmented mobility systems and the absence of harmonized frameworks for disability inclusion [8,18]. Erasmus+ data also show that despite formal commitments to inclusion, only 0.36% of participants with disabilities engaged in mobility programs in 2019 [7]. This gap reflects the systemic exclusion still embedded in mobility governance structures.

Finally, the absence of Chilean Sign Language interpreters and insufficient recognition of non-visible disabilities correspond to international evidence emphasizing the importance of individualized and intersectional approaches to inclusion [5,8]. Reports on inclusive mobility advocate for recognizing neurodiversity and invisible disabilities as central to policy development, expanding accessibility beyond physical barriers to encompass communication, mental health, and sensory differences [6].

Communication issues and the lack of transparency in implementing reasonable adjustments are common barriers that require technological and organizational solutions to improve accessibility. The importance of an accessibility ecosystem involving multiple stakeholders, including students, teachers, and disability service offices is emphasized [21]. International studies reveal similar challenges, such as inadequate infrastructure and negative attitudes from academic staff, which limit their full participation in higher education [12]. Therefore, they suggest that HEIs develop and promote inclusive policies.

In the Chilean context, physical and digital barriers, the lack of reasonable adjustments in the teaching-learning process, and poor inclusive mobility management are observed. These barriers include the lack of accessible transportation and the insufficient implementation of reasonable adjustments by teachers, despite being guaranteed by Law 20.422 (2010). Additionally, the lack of coordination between support units from origin and host HEIs and the scarcity of specific scholarship programs for the mobility of people with disabilities exacerbate these difficulties.

Suggestions for improving mobility include subsidizing accessible transportation, improving signage, and training teaching staff on disabilities and reasonable adjustments. Furthermore, the importance of considering the specific needs of people with non-observable disabilities is highlighted, in line with national technical guidelines and previous studies [28].

HEIs must adopt a proactive stance in implementing inclusive policies that ensure the right to equitable and quality higher education for all students, regardless of their disability conditions. Additionally, it is recommended that an accessibility ecosystem be created that facilitates coordination among the various actors involved, supported by technological solutions that enhance communication and transparency in the provision of reasonable adjustments.

Regarding the limitations of the study, it is considered important to say that the sample size was based on a relatively small group. However, efforts were made to mitigate this effect with proportional representation by region of the student body and include various disability situations. The barriers and facilitators identified may vary significantly in other regions of the country or international contexts, limiting the results’ applicability to other geographic settings (central and northern regions of the country). The qualitative nature of the study provides a deep understanding of the participants’ experiences and perceptions but also implies limitations regarding data quantification. The lack of a complementary quantitative approach prevents conducting statistical analyses that could offer a more representative view of the national context.

6. Conclusions

This study provides insights into the perceptions and experiences of undergraduate students with disabilities in higher education institutions (HEIs) in southern Chile regarding their potential participation in student mobility programs. Through individual and group interviews, barriers were identified that hinder or prevent the experience of choosing to engage in student mobility to enhance cultural, educational, and personal aspects.

The most prominent barriers reported by the interviewed students include the lack of both physical and digital accessibility in host institutions, the absence of adapted public transportation in host cities, and the lack of ramps and access infrastructure to heritage buildings, as well as old ones. However, we identify the insufficient implementation of reasonable adjustments in the educational field to be a critical barrier (these adjustments, although guaranteed as a right, are often denied or only partially provided as a favour), representing the main obstacle for people with disabilities in opting for student mobility. HEI teaching and administrative staff’s competencies have been identified as significant barriers to people with disabilities. Despite laws and policies that guarantee reasonable adjustments, their practical implementation remains inadequate, negatively affecting the academic performance and well-being of students with disabilities.

The lack of proper coordination and institutional support also represents a significant barrier. The absence of specific scholarship programs and well-coordinated support units between the originating and host institutions makes mobility and inclusion difficult for these students. This results in additional costs associated with a mobility experience for a person with disabilities (medical insurance, support personnel, accessible transportation, sign language interpreters, etc.), which are often borne by families when neither the State nor the HEIs provide them. This aspect may influence the lack of people with disabilities engagement in academic mobility despite the experience’s many advantages.

HEIs must work proactively and in coordination to eliminate the identified barriers and provide the necessary support so that all students, regardless of their abilities, can fully take advantage of student mobility’s academic and cultural opportunities. The experiences shared in the interviews reveal a society that has yet to commit, in practice, to providing an inclusive and equitable society.