This article was downloaded by: [Columbia University]

On: 18 August 2014, At: 04:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Disability & Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

Hearing the voices of disabled students

in higher education
a a
Philip Vickerman & Milly Blundell
a
Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure , Liverpool John
Moores University , IM Marsh Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool,
L17 6BD, UK
Published online: 04 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Philip Vickerman & Milly Blundell (2010) Hearing the voices of disabled
students in higher education, Disability & Society, 25:1, 21-32, DOI: 10.1080/09687590903363290

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590903363290

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Disability & Society
Vol. 25, No. 1, January 2010, 21–32

Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education

Philip Vickerman* and Milly Blundell

Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure, Liverpool John Moores University, IM Marsh
Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool L17 6BD, UK
(Received 4 September 2008; final version received 6 May 2009)
Taylor and Francis
CDSO_A_436507.sgm

Disability
10.1080/09687590903363290
0968-7599
Original
Taylor
102009
25
Dr.
p.vickerman@ljmu.ac.uk
00000January
PhilipVickerman
&Article
Francis
&(print)/1360-0508
Society
2010 (online)

Since the return of the Labour government to power in the UK in 1997 issues of
social inclusion have risen up the political and statutory agenda within higher
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

education (HE). This study reports the findings of disabled students lived
experiences and views of transition from induction through to employability
within one HE institution. The study examined the perspectives of disabled
students via a questionnaire and face-to-face interviews. It found that there was
still much work to be done in levelling HE experiences for disabled students and
identified five key issues that should be addressed in order to enable access and
entitlement to HE. These are pre-course induction support, commitment by HE
institutions to facilitating barrier free curricula, consultation with disabled
students, institutional commitment to develop support services and embedding of
personal development planning.
Keywords: higher education; disabled students; consultation

Introduction and context

Since the return of the Labour government to power in the UK in 1997 there has been
widespread evidence of inclusive policies and practices rising up the political and
statutory agenda. More specifically, in relation to disabled students within higher
education (HE) these have addressed strategies to enhance opportunities and access to
the physical, social, learning and teaching environment (Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson
2005). Fuller, Bradley, and Healey (2004) suggested though that despite growing
interest in issues surrounding inclusion, the voices of disabled students have rarely
been heard. Indeed, Hurst (1999) argued that hearing the voices and lived experiences
of disabled students should be a central tenet of successfully understanding their needs
and as such they should be proactively consulted and empowered to advocate their
views. According to Yair (2008) this supports the increasing human rights and
empowerment agenda reflecting social models of disability in which individuals are
encouraged to have a greater say in decisions that have an impact upon them. Further-
more, Tinklin, Riddell, and Wilson (2004) suggested that until HE institutions consult
disabled students directly they will remain ignorant of the difficulties and barriers
faced by them.
This paper reports on insights into the views and experiences of disabled students
in one HE institution through the administration of a questionnaire and four face-to-
face in-depth interviews (Opdenakker 2006). The intention was to hear the voices of

*Corresponding author. E-mail: p.vickerman@ljmu.ac.uk

ISSN 0968-7599 print/ISSN 1360-0508 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09687590903363290
http://www.informaworld.com
 22 P. Vickerman and M. Blundell

disabled students related to their views and experiences of a range of learner support
practices within HE. A final phase incorporating the views and experiences of
academic staff in supporting disabled students in HE was also undertaken, but is not
reported here as the aim of this paper is to share the findings of the student voice
(Piggott 2007) in relation to the extent they perceive they were being supported within
their studies.
In recent years the UK Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2007) (now the
Commission for Equality and Human Rights) identified a shift in the interpretation of
disability within a HE context. The Commission has suggested that, driven by
disabled academics articulation of the social model of disability, recognition has
grown that where disabled people face disadvantage this is not usually as a conse-
quence of the functioning of their body or mind. Moreover, it is a failure to tackle
barriers (Denhart 2008) of the environment, policy (Lundie 2009) and attitude along-
side a lack of a proactive commitment by HE institutions to extend to disabled people
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

the same opportunities that are open to the rest of society. Thus, disabled people are
being marginalised by HE organisations who are not sufficiently adopting positive
strategies to consult disabled students when implementing policies and practices to
break down barriers to study (Green 2007).

Developing HE provision for disabled students

In 1993 the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and Scotland were
persuaded by pressure groups such as Skill (National Bureau for Students with
Disabilities) to provide special initiative funding to institutions to improve provision
for disabled students. Prior to this HE was largely inaccessible to disabled people and
any adjustments made were based upon the goodwill of staff and students (Barnes,
cited in Riddell, Weedon, and Fuller 2007; Leicester and Lovell 1994). The funding
councils moved towards mainstream support for disabled students with premium
funding introduced in England in the academic year 1999–2000, which was allocated
to HE institutions on the basis of the number of students recruited from marginalised
groups. Riddell, Weedon, and Fuller (2007) suggested, however, that by allocating
money in such a way it acknowledges that there is a cost to HE institutions in recruit-
ing and retaining ‘non-traditional’ students and it could be argued that the Disability
Support Allowance reflects an individualised view of disability that resides with the
student, thus contradicting the social model of disability. Moreover, HE institutions
should acknowledge their roles and responsibilities in empowering disabled students
(Franklin and Sloper 2006) to advocate their views, opinions and experiences whilst
taking strategic responsibility to meet the needs of individuals as necessary, rather
than disabled people feeling that they have to adapt to ‘fit in’ to existing HE practice.
Hurst (1999) noted in an examination of HE in 1997 conducted by the Dearing and
Garrick committees (UK National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education 1997)
that they did not initially include disabled students in their terms of reference,
although, due in part to the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities (Skill), a
number of disability related recommendations emerged from these reports, including
the need to fund learning support in HE institutions. Following this, the UK Quality
Assurance Agency (1999) published the Code of practice for the assurance of
academic quality and standards in higher education: Students with disabilities, with
the objective of assisting institutions to ensure that disabled students had access to
learning experiences that were comparable with those of their peers. Indeed, Fuller,
 Disability & Society 23

Bradley, and Healey (2004) highlighted issues concerning increasingly diverse

student populations that have serious implications for policy and practice within HE
and it is imperative that disabled students are consulted (Madriaga 2007) about their
experiences and knowledge of teaching, learning and assessment. By adopting such
an approach Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson (2005) suggested this would assist in
moulding future policy and practices to a much more significant level than is currently
the case.

Emerging HE legislation related to disabled people

A significant aspect of legislation within HE in the UK was the introduction of the
Disability discrimination act (DDA) (Home Office 1995), which was implemented to
end the discrimination that many disabled people were facing. Interestingly, however,
education was originally exempt from the DDA (Home Office 1995), although Part 4
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

did require institutions to publish disability statements indicating policy, provision

and future plans for disabled people. In 2001 though the DDA was amended through
The special educational needs and disability act (SENDA) (Department for Education
and Skills [DFES] 2001). Within Part 4 of SENDA discrimination was defined as the
failure to make reasonable adjustments or the provision of less favourable treatments
to a student for reasons relating to their disability without justification. Consequently,
HE institutions were expected to carry out anticipatory adjustments and be prepared
in advance to support disabled students, rather than simply respond in an ad hoc way
to the needs of individual people (Riddel, Tinklin, and Wilson 2005).
Additionally a new ‘Disability equality duty’ (DED) (Disability Rights Commis-
sion 2006) came into force in December 2006 placing a legal requirement on public
bodies such as HE institutions to be proactive in ensuring that disabled people are
treated fairly and equally and that the opportunities available to disabled students and
their achievements are equal to those of their non-disabled peers. Furthermore, the
specific responsibilities of the DED require public bodies to draw up ‘Disability
equality schemes’ on a three yearly basis and actively involve local disabled people,
disabled staff and students in the process, thus reinforcing the consultation and
empowerment of disabled people agenda (Zepke, Leach, and Prebble 2006).
Presently, disabled students are under-represented in HE and institutions have
some way to go before they can boast of equal access for all (Healey et al. 2006). Find-
ings from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (2005) indicate that in 2005–2006
there were 137,945 students in HE with a disability, having increased from 82,820 in
2000–2001. Thus the proportion of students with a disability has risen from 4.7% to
6.9% of total student numbers over a five year period. Thus, as disabled student
numbers increase HE institutions should actively consult disabled people (Shelving,
Kenny, and McNeela 2004) to gain an insight into their lived experiences if policies
and practices are to respond and address the issues and challenges they face in access-
ing educational services.
However, the question that should be posed is while statistically more disabled
students are now within HE, have numbers actually risen or do existing people feel
more comfortable at disclosing a disability (with legislative support and developing
HE institutional policy)? This is an issue that would benefit from further analysis.
Tinklin, Riddell, and Wilson (2004) noted, for example, that in recent years the
proportion of disabled students declaring dyslexia has almost doubled, although,
again, whether this reflects increased incentives to disclose and/or whether more
 24 P. Vickerman and M. Blundell

disabled students are now entering HE is a question for debate. Thus, whilst this
study does not address the specific issue of whether more disabled people are enter-
ing HE and/or whether they are more comfortable at disclosing their disability, it does
seek to gain insights into disabled peoples lived experiences of HE. Furthermore, it
seeks to, as Fuller, Bradley, and Healey (2004) and Healey et al. (2006) noted, gain
insights into the quality of learning and social experiences disabled students have
once they have entered HE, alongside the extent to which their individual needs are
being met.

Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of students in HE related
to their experiences of induction onto their course, course delivery, barriers to learning
and links into employability with the purpose of gaining a rich insight into the various
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

stages of the student life cycle. The subjects were identified from the (phase one)
questionnaire responses of 504 students from a sample of 600 (84% return rate) at one
UK HE institution on physical education, sport, dance and outdoor education courses
in all years and at all stages of their academic programmes. Convenience sampling
(Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2005) was chosen as the authors had easy access to
students studying these subjects. Whilst there may be some limitations to sampling
from one HE and only gathering data in the aforementioned subjects (Burton,
Brundrett, and Jones 2008), the intention of the authors was to gain an insight into
their local student experience and then, where possible, provide insights into disabled
student’s experiences of HE at a broader level.
All students (regardless of whether they had a disability or not) were asked to
complete a questionnaire focusing upon a range of learner support questions which
examined experiences of HE. The students who then disclosed that they had/thought
they may have a disability were compared with those who indicated that they did not
have a disability to ascertain whether there were any differences in perceptions and
experiences of HE. Once the phase one questionnaire data had been analysed a second
phase involving four face-to-face interviews with disabled students was undertaken.

Phase one: student learner support questionnaire

Respondents from phase one were predominantly white European and all were under
30 years of age. Several options were considered when determining how to ascertain
the views, opinions and experiences of students. Students could have been observed
in tutorials and lectures whilst at university, although it would have been problemati-
cal to standardise this (Bridges and Smith 2007). Face-to-face interviews would also
have been complex in relation to the amount of time taken, as well as being subject to
small sample populations in the initial stage of the investigation (Peugh and Enders
2004). The decision was therefore taken to distribute a questionnaire containing open
and closed questions to 600 disabled and non-disabled students within one UK HE
institution. Prior to administration of the phase one questionnaire a pilot was
conducted with 10 subjects to ensure the questions were clear and relevant to the
subject and students under investigation.
When attempting to make judgements on individual’s views, opinions and experi-
ences of inclusion Farrell (2000, 156) suggested that there are potential concerns
related to this type of methodological research in that ‘evaluating the effectiveness of
 Disability & Society 25

inclusion is virtually impossible’. This is due to the range of inclusive experiences and
contexts being so great and the variety of available provision and delivery being so
diverse. Therefore, as a result it is often difficult to judge whether students are expe-
riencing similar or entirely different forms of educational experience (Armour and
Jones 1998).
In contrast, Goodwin and Watkinson (2000) suggested that the alternative of not
comparing or discussing inclusive provision discounts the rich sources of data that can
be gleaned from the subjects themselves, who are fundamentally at the heart of the
provision that is being delivered. The questionnaire in phase one was therefore
administered face-to-face with students, thus succeeding in a high return rate with a
total of 504 out of 600 responses (84% return rate). The questionnaire comprised ques-
tions under headings of: about you; the student life cycle; pre-entry into HE; enrol-
ment; induction; personal development; additional safety net support; assessment;
employability.
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

Phase two: interviews with selected disabled students

Phase two consisted of randomly selecting four disabled students (one from each
subject area of physical education, sport, dance and outdoor education) for face-to-
face interviews. The student’s disabilities included a general learning difficulty,
dyslexia and physical disability. There were two male and two female students and
questions for the interviews were drawn from the key themes and issues that had
emerged from the phase one questionnaire. The purpose of undertaking face-to-face
interviews was that it afforded an opportunity to gain a richer insight into the experi-
ences of students across the four subject areas and analyse their experiences in more
detail.

Data collection and analysis

Data from the phase one questionnaire was collated and represented in graph format
following analysis via the Statistical Package for Social Scientists v. 14.0. The
open-ended responses were analysed using protocol analysis (Robson 2002;
Marshall and Rossman 2006) in order to provide a rich insight into the general and
specific issues related to students experiences of HE. The responses were then
coded according to four protocols of demonstrating credibility, transferability,
dependability and conformity of the results as a means of validating the findings
(Robson 2002).
In relation to ‘credibility’, statistical data were collected from the closed questions,
while, in contrast, the open-ended data were coded (Marshall and Rossman 2006) to
key themes and issues arising from the data. Protocol analysis, according to Marshall
and Rossman (2006), also involves identifying common themes and issues which can
be coded according to their potential to be ‘transferred’ to previous studies in order to
identify areas of ‘conformity’ that arise from the data. This helps to ensure the ‘depend-
ability’ of the data set, as it can be triangulated with data from previous findings.

The HE institution in the study

The HE institution in which the research was undertaken was a large northern univer-
sity in the UK with around 24,000 students. In response to recent legislation (i.e. the
 26 P. Vickerman and M. Blundell

DDA, SENDA and DED) the university had established a range of policies and strat-
egies to ensure the inclusion of disabled students was reflected at policy level. As such
the university produced a series of documents which specifically referred to provision
for disabled students including a Learner support guide, Learning, teaching and
assessment strategy (with an inclusivity strand) and a Disability equality scheme.

Discussion and findings

HE institutions in the UK have a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments for
disabled students, which is supported through legislation such as the SENDA (DFES
2001) and the DED (Disability Rights Commission 2006). According to McIlveen
et al. (2005) HE institutions are becoming increasingly aware of the need to anticipate
the needs of disabled students in order to ensure they have equal access and entitle-
ment to the range of learning, teaching, assessment, physical and social opportunities
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

on offer. However, authors such as Pitt and Curtin (2004) suggested HE institutions
need to be challenged to create truly inclusive environments that are significantly
distinct from the early 1990s, when virtually no support was available for disabled
students (Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson 2005).
Moreover, Fuller et al. (2004) indicated that whilst progress has been made during
the last few years as more disabled students enter HE there is still much work to do in
the UK. Thus, unless HE institutions recognise the unevenness of understanding of
disabled students’ needs and subsequently demonstrate a willingness to accommodate
those needs it would be easy to think that legislation in itself has created an environ-
ment that can accommodate the educational needs of disabled students. Indeed,
research by authors such as Barnes (2005) and Butterwick and Benjamin (2006) indi-
cated that legislation alone is insufficient to effect change and thus a much more
complex strategy of reviewing practices, procedures and active consultation of
disabled people is required to work towards a fairer HE. Thus, from the findings of
this study, which set out to consult and hear the voices of disabled people and their
experiences of transition into HE, several themes and issues from course delivery and
on into employability have become evident, which will now be discussed in turn.

Disclosing a disability
Of the 504 students questioned 5.6% indicated that they had a disability, compared
with the UK average of 6.9%. Interestingly, 25% of students declaring that they had a
disability stated they had not disclosed this on their university application due to a
perceived fear that they may not be offered a place on the course of their choice. One
student commented ‘I was applying for a professional teaching course and I was
concerned that disclosing my disability would make people think twice about taking
me’. According to Green (2007) disabled people are expected by students both with
and without experience of disability to experience social awkwardness, discomfort
and stigma. However, they are not generally expected to be devalued by others
because of their disabilities alone. Jacoby and Austin (2007) suggested that having a
disability can increase the perception that they are devalued and stigmatised, and as
such this may be why some students were concerned about disclosure in case it
resulted in negativity and lack of access. As a result, HE institutions need to work
much more proactively at the pre-entry to university stage to encourage students to
disclose their disability, alongside a commitment that when they do they will be
 Disability & Society 27

treated with respect, empathy and will be able to work towards addressing any poten-
tial barriers to their learning within a positive culture.

Pre-enrolement and transition to university

Pitt and Curtin (2004) argued that it is good practice on the part of students to disclose
their disability and for HE institutions to encourage and support this process (Shaw
et al. 2007). However, of the 75% of students who declared a disability on their
university application, 47.6% indicated that they had not been contacted prior to the
commencement of their course by either academic or welfare services staff. Thus, if
HE institutions are to encourage students to disclose their disability in order to antic-
ipate the needs of disabled students, the evidence from this study demonstrates that
this is not always being followed through. Indeed, one student commented ‘if I had
been contacted before I started my course I would have seen this as positive – it would
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

have also signalled to me that my tutors where wanting to ensure I had the best
opportunity of succeeding’.
Furthermore, of the 52.4% of disabled students who were contacted prior to the
start of their courses only 36.4% said it was either a helpful or very helpful process.
Indeed, one student in the face-to-face interviews commented that ‘having something
in place for when people arrive at university if it’s been disclosed on their UCAS
application form would be good – I did this, was contacted, but it was not much use’.
Thus, disabled students want to engage in advance, but HE institutions need to consult
much more widely with disabled students to ascertain what support they would like to
receive in the first instance. Holloway (2001) supported this view, advocating the need
for a central HE institution policy which supports the philosophy of an accessible
learning environment for all students, central coordination to implement the policy
with practical guidelines to departments, ongoing monitoring and evaluation and the
involvement of disabled students as an integral aspect of staff training and student
advocacy.
In contrast to some of the negative comments and experiences of disabled students
though, it was interesting to note that for a course where students were interviewed as
part of their application process one student commented ‘I got a really good vibe from
here at interview and I liked how they were going to support me … and this made a
difference’. Thus, whilst the interview process can be daunting for some students, the
opportunity for the student to visit the university and discuss their needs as part of the
decision-making process could have positive benefits to both staff and students alike.
Indeed, Tinklin, Riddell, and Wilson (2004) suggested that there is a risk that the
emphasis on provision for disabled students remains too heavily on providing students
with individual support to access an otherwise inaccessible ‘mainstream’ system
which remains largely unchanged. Therefore, in addition to developing good practice
which encourages students to disclose disability, it is vital that HE institutions develop
flexible curricula (Borland and James 1999) and address any related issues, as the
interview process can be an opportunity to address this.

Teaching, learning and assessment

Fuller et al. (2004) identified the need for variety and flexibility in all aspects of teach-
ing and learning and argued that what works for one student may not be a good option
for another. Indeed, 11.1% of disabled students in this study indicated that their
 28 P. Vickerman and M. Blundell

assessments did not cater for their needs, compared with 3.6% of their non-disabled
peers. Thus, whilst the differences between the student groups were not vast, there was
a perception that the assessments were more restrictive for the disabled. However, one
student noted a positive comment in the face-to-face interviews: ‘I think now there’s
greater awareness of disability and the tutors are doing more to encourage a variety of
assessments for every module’. In contrast, where disabled students felt their learning,
teaching and assessment was restrictive this tended to be a result of inappropriate
learning objectives, a lack of adapted equipment for practical activities, a lack of
modification of teaching by tutors, a lack of discussion with disabled students regard-
ing barriers to learning and assessment strategies that significantly disadvantaged
disabled students.
In relation to teaching and assessment, the findings showed that staff enthusiasm
(Zepke, Leach, and Prebble 2006) for making major changes to the curriculum and
assessment was limited. Indeed, some disabled students’ perceived staff displaying
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

considerable anxiety in relation to assessment and, in particular, about conferring an

unfair advantage (Riddell, Weedon, and Fuller 2007) on disabled students in compar-
ison with non-disabled counterparts who were having difficulty with the course. One
student commented: ‘I did ask my tutor about alternative assessments due to my
disability but he said it would not be fair on the others – perhaps they were not aware
of SENDA and the need to make reasonable adjustments’. This rich insight into the
barriers faced by an individual student demonstrates both a lack of awareness on the
tutors part of legislative requirements and a lack of training on how to respond to
diversity in learning, teaching and assessment.
In conclusion, therefore, based on the perceptions of disabled students as detailed
in this study, teaching and learning is a critical and challenging issue that needs to be
tackled in order to provide effective learning experiences (Tinklin, Riddell, and
Wilson 2004). Furthermore, Konur (2002) suggested that academic achievement
rather than disability assessment is a central issue to consider in ensuring HE matches
the aspirations of disabled students. Thus, whilst equality legislation is an important
part of the jigsaw, it is vital that this is matched by the education and training of HE
staff to respond proactively to the diverse needs of the disabled students they support.

Career development and employability

This study found that 50% of disabled students did not have any contact with the
university careers service and those who did found the advice to be limited in relation
to specific issues around employability. One student for example commented: ‘I did
not know that we had opportunities to get “access to work” grants, which would be
useful for me and my tutors to have known about’. Furthermore, one student
commented:

I think employers are much more positive about disability than they were in the past but
we still need to be given the confidence and skills to prepare for job applications as our
confidence levels are often lower due to previous negative experiences.

Therefore, whilst there is a perception that employment opportunities are becom-

ing more favourable for disabled people (in part due to employment law), disabled
people still need proactive support, advice and guidance by careers services and it
would be advantageous for them to consult with disabled people in order to ascertain
 Disability & Society 29

what their needs are. Butterwick and Benjamin (2006) and Shelving, Kenny, and
McNeela (2004) supported this view, suggesting that employability and life skills
should be incorporated into any disabled students participation in HE. In doing so
disabled students would have opportunities to address any potential barriers or limita-
tions that seeking jobs may present and HE institutions could play an important role
in ensuring any issues are addressed early on in order to minimise disadvantage.
Indeed, McEachern (2007) stated that disabled students are often unprepared to
handle the transition from school and or college into work, often lacking direction and
knowledge of the world of work and/or the barriers and challenges that they might
face. McEachern (2007) further suggested that academic staff should be proactive in
their counselling interventions and include career exploration, confronting barriers to
employment, job search processes and other transitional challenges as a central aspect
of actively supporting disabled students if they are to be afforded the opportunity to
maximise their full potential. McIlveen et al. (2005) supported this view, suggesting
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

that HE institutions should develop strategies to support transition from a range of

phases within the academic life cycle in order to ensure barriers to disabled students
are addressed at the earliest opportunity.

Concluding thoughts
In relation to the importance of hearing the voices of disabled students, which was the
focus of this paper, Madriaga (2007) presented findings from a UK Aimhigher report
on disability issues within HE (in which students were consulted as part of this study).
It identified a lack of information to support disabled people in making choices about
their futures, particularly in relation to gaining information about pursuing HE. Thus,
without information to make informed choices, disabled students not only experienced
stress and anxiety but also difficulty in preparing themselves for HE and, according to
Madriaga (2007), this may be one reason for the low proportion of disabled students
in further and higher education within the UK at present. Madriaga (2007) went on to
suggest that the reason for the low proportion of disabled students in HE can also be
attributed to several issues that are inextricably linked to disablism. Thus there is a
need to change the institutional policies and cultures of HE institutions alongside the
provision of staff development to ensure disabled people are afforded equal access and
support to educational provision.
In order to address these issues Butterwick and Benjamin (2006) called for HE
institutions to develop models of personal development, with a particular focus on
creating a set of life skills that are positioned to ultimately assist students to succeed
in their courses and gain the skills for employability. However, Tinklin and Hall
(1999), in their study on the experiences of disabled students in Scotland, indicated
that although there were some signs of improvement in provision for disabled students
over recent years, barriers remained regarding entrance to HE, the physical environ-
ment, access to information and low levels of awareness among staff (similarly to this
study).
Furthermore, the good experiences for students largely depended on the attitudes,
experience and personal knowledge of particular members of staff, rather than
institutional policies and provision, which varied greatly between academic depart-
ments within institutions. Thus, as Tinklin, Riddell, and Wilson (2004) concluded,
whilst there are definite signs of progress in the development of provision for
disabled students, many areas need much further attention, in relation to transition
 30 P. Vickerman and M. Blundell

arrangements from induction through course delivery and on into employability.

This also needs to be matched by more coordinated approaches to supporting
disabled students at the policy and practice levels within HE.
According to Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson (2005) whilst HE institutions have
formulated disability policies and established disabled student support services, a
gap between rhetorical policy and practice is evident, with most students struggling
to receive ad hoc support. As such, the ideal of creating fully inclusive institutions in
which anticipatory adjustments are embedded will clearly take some time to achieve.
However, based on the findings of this study there are several factors which HE
institutions and staff supporting disabled people should consider if they are to
address potential inequalities in educational, social, behavioural and physical
instances. Indeed, this study has identified five key issues for HE institutions to
address, namely that pre-induction support is critical, staff must commit to facilitat-
ing a barrier-free curriculum, consultation with and empowerment of disabled
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

students views is essential, there must be a commitment on the part of HE institu-

tions to develop student support services and personal development planning must
be embedded.
Thus, as Riddell (1998) argued, those working to empower disabled students
equal access to HE should continue to ‘chip away at the mountain’, and integral to
this is a commitment from the policy through to practice level of a desire to adopt
flexible approaches to all aspects of university life. Indeed, Konur (2007) suggested
disabled people should have opportunities to attain the same academic standards as
their non-disabled peers – and the issues raised within this paper that have come
directly from disabled students would be a useful starting point for proactive
action.

References
Armour, K., and R. Jones. 1998. Physical education teachers lives and careers. PE, sport and
educational status. London: Falmer.
Barnes, C. 2005. Independent living: Politics and policy in the United Kingdom: A social
model account. Journal of Learning Disability Studies 36, no. 3: 248–58.
Borland, J., and S. James. 1999. The learning experiences of students with disabilities in
higher education: A case study of a UK university. Disability & Society 14, no. 1: 85–101.
Bridges, D., and R. Smith. 2007. Philosophy, methodology and educational research.
London: Blackwell.
Burton, N., M. Brundrett, and M. Jones. 2008. Doing your education research project.
London: Sage.
Butterwick, S., and A. Benjamin. 2006. The road to employability through personal develop-
ment: A critical analysis of the silences and ambiguities of the British Columbia (Canada)
life skills curriculum. International Journal of Lifelong Education 25, no. 1: 75–86.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2005. Research methods in education. London:
Routledge.
Denhart, H. 2008. Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labelled with learning
disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities 41, no. 6: 483–97.
Department for Education and Skills. 2001. The special educational needs and disability act.
London: HMSO.
Disability Rights Commission. 2006. Disability equality duty. Disability Rights Commission.
http://www.dotheduty.org/.
Disability Rights Commission. 2007. Disability rights. Disability Rights Commission. http://
www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm.
Farrell, P. 2000. The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. International
Journal of Inclusive Education 4, no. 2: 153–64.
 Disability & Society 31

Franklin, A., and F. Sloper. 2006. Participation of disabled children and young people in deci-
sion making within social services departments: A survey of current and recent activities
in England. British Journal of Social Work 36, no. 5: 723–41.
Fuller, M., A. Bradley, and M. Healey. 2004. Incorporating disabled students with an inclu-
sive higher education environment. Disability & Society 19, no. 5: 455–68.
Fuller, M., M. Healey, B. Bradley, and T. Hall. 2004. Barriers to learning: A systematic study
of the experience of disabled students in one university. Studies in Higher Education 29,
no. 3: 303–18.
Goodwin, L., and J. Watkinson. 2000. Inclusive physical education from the perspectives of
students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity and Sport Quarterly 17:
144–60.
Green, S. 2007. Components of perceived stigma and perceptions of well-being among
university students with and without disability experience. Health Sociology Review 16,
nos. 3–4: 328–40.
Healey, M., A. Bradley, M. Fuller, and T. Hall. 2006. Listening to students: The experiences
of disabled students of learning at university. In Towards inclusive learning in higher
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

education, ed. M. Adams and S. Brown. London: Routledge.

Higher Education Statistics Agency. 2005. National statistics. Higher Education Statistics
Agency. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1100/161/.
Holloway, S. 2001. The experiences of higher education from the perspectives of disabled
students. Disability & Society 16, no. 4: 597–615.
Home Office. 1995. The disability discrimination act. London: HMSO.
Hurst, A. 1999. The Dearing report and students with disabilities and learning difficulties.
Disability & Society 14, no. 1: 65–83.
Jacoby, A., and J. Austin. 2007. Problems for people with epilepsy beyond seizures. Epilepsia
48, no. 9: 6–9.
Konur, O. 2002. Assessment of disabled students in higher education: Current policy issues.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 27, no. 2: 131–52.
Konur, O. 2007. Computer-assisted teaching and assessment of disabled students in higher
education: The interface between academic standards and disability rights. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 23, no. 3: 207–19.
Leicester, M., and T. Lovell. 1994. Race, gender and disability: A comparative perspective.
Journal of Further and Higher Education 18: 52–6.
Lundie, D. 2009. A theory of motivation and ontological enhancement: The role of disability
policy in student empowerment and institutional change. Educational Philosophy and
Theory 41, no. 5: 539–52.
Madriaga, M. 2007. Enduring disablism: Students with dyslexia and their pathways into UK
higher education and beyond. Disability & Society 22, no. 4: 399–412.
Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 2006. The ethics of educational research. London: Blackwell.
McEachern, A. 2007. Transition groups for high school students with disabilities. The Journal
for Specialists in Group Work 32, no. 2: 165–77.
McIlveen, P., M. Cameron, D. McLachlan, and J. Gunn. 2005. The study-to-work transition
of university students with a disability. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling
10, no. 1: 46–55.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. 1997. Education in the learning
society, Report of the National Committee. London: HMSO.
Opdenakker, R. 2006. Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualita-
tive research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7, no. 4: 11
Peugh, J., and C. Enders. 2004. Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting
practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research 74: 525–56.
Piggott, L. 2007. Transition experiences of disabled young people. International Journal of
Lifelong Education 26, no. 5: 573–87.
Pitt, V., and M. Curtin. 2004. Integration versus segregation: The experiences of a group of
disabled students moving from mainstream school into special needs further education.
Disability & Society 19, no. 4: 387–401.
Quality Assurance Agency. 1999. Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and
standards in higher education, Section 3: Students with disabilities. London: Quality
Assurance Agency.
 32 P. Vickerman and M. Blundell

Riddell, S. 1998. Chipping away at the mountain: Disabled students’ experience of higher
education. International Studies in Sociology of Education 8, no. 2: 203–22.
Riddell, S., T. Tinklin, and A. Wilson. 2005. New Labour, social justice and disabled students
in higher education. British Educational Research Journal 31, no. 5: 623–43.
Riddell, S., E. Weedon, and M. Fuller. 2007. Managerialism and equalities: Tensions within
widening access policy and practice for disabled students in UK universities. Journal of
Higher Education 54, no. 4: 615–28.
Robson, C. 2002. Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner
researchers, 2nd ed. London: Blackwell.
Shaw, J., K. Brain, K. Bridger, J. Foreman, and I. Reid. 2007. Embedding widening participa-
tion and promoting student diversity: What can be learned from a business case
approach? York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Shelving, M., M. Kenny, and E. McNeela. 2004. Participation in higher education for students
with disabilities: An Irish perspective. Disability & Society 19, no. 1: 15–30.
Tinklin, T., and J. Hall. 1999. Getting round obstacles: Disabled students’ experiences in
higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education 24, no. 2: 183–94.
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 04:23 18 August 2014

Tinklin, T., S. Riddell, and A. Wilson. 2004. Policy and provision for disabled students in
higher education in Scotland and England: The current state of play. Studies in Higher
Education 29, no. 5: 637–57.
Yair, G. 2008. Key educational experiences and self discovery in higher education. Teaching
and Teacher Education 24, no. 1: 92–103.
Zepke, N., L. Leach, and T. Prebble. 2006. Being learner centred: One way to improve
student retention? Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 5: 587–600.