Ann-Marie Houghton
Disability effective inclusive policies: student and
staff perspectives on experiences throughout the
student lifecycle
Ann-Marie Houghton
Lancaster University, UK
Paper presented at the 36th Annual SCUTREA Conference, 4-6 July 2006,
Trinity and All Saints College, Leeds
Disability Effective Inclusive Policies (DEIP): a project context
The DEIP project, funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) is a collaborative
research project between Sussex and Lancaster Universities. It aims to explore ways
in which higher education institutions support disabled students through higher
education and into employment. The DEIP project has explored the experiences and
understanding of services with current disabled students and university staff including
policy makers and practitioners from Sussex and Lancaster, as well as analysing
institutional documentation.
Although not discussed in detail within this paper, in the context of the conference it
is interesting to consider the impact of external funding bodies such as the ESF on
the direction and ultimate dissemination of the research. For instance, the ESF
employment focus means that the linkages between the beginning and end of the
student lifecycle assume a greater significance. Existing literature and disabled
students’ accounts of higher education are analysed in terms of how, if at all, the
experiences at the start of higher education might provide a foundation and
preparation for future employment. There is a heightened connection between past,
present and future experiences. Reeve (2004) argues that past experiences are
influential in respect of the psycho-emotional aspects of disability, which can
determine an individual’s reaction to future situations. In addition, the emphasis on
employability and the longer-term outcome of higher education participation on future
involvement of disabled people in the workforce reinforces the wider contextual
factors that influence the lifelong and lifewide learning experiences discussed by
Pollard, (2003).
Models of disability: a wider context
In addition to the employability agenda associated with project funding, the DEIP
project is also informed by, and engages with academic and policy debates relating
to models and definitions of disability. Models of disability can be important for
explanatory purposes and maybe useful when examining and changing policy and
practice Lewellyn and Hogan, (2000).
The two dominant models are both subject to interpretation and encompass a range
of subsidiary frameworks that share their originators overarching focus. For example,
the medical or individual model focuses on individual need and objectifies the
disabled person as a recipient of treatment, support, or assistance. Until recently, this
model dominated the policy and practice within higher education and the compulsory
education system. The labelling and categorising associated with the medical model
36th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings 2006
169
Ann-Marie Houghton
are integral to the administrative and welfare models that influence how the
education system responds to disabled learners.
In contrast, the social model focuses on the role and responsibility of society,
structural and organisational systems that shape provision, including teaching and
learning experiences. Within the social model, definitions distinguish between
impairment that refers to the individual condition, and the term disability that arises as
a result of physical, environmental, legal, cultural and attitudinal barriers experienced
by a person with impairment. As (Swain et al., 2003, p24) explain: ‘disability is not
something one has, but is something that is done to the person … being excluded or
confronted on a daily basis by barriers’. (See Houghton, 2005 for a further discussion
of models of disability).
Identifying the model that informs or underpins institutional policy and action is not
always straightforward, because of the difference between declared intention and
eventual action. The adoption of a particular model by an institution ought to have
implications for institutional practice. There is, however, no guarantee that
institutional policy statements advocating a particular model, will automatically result
in a corresponding practice. Furthermore, it is likely that in periods of change, that
traces of previous ways of thinking and acting remain alongside more recent
discourses. Change is typically uneven across different sections of an institution as a
result of varying levels of awareness, professional allegiance or the centrality of the
issue to a person’s job.
The models of disability not only shape institutional response to, and provision for
disabled students, they also influence the nature of the data analysis. Disability
literature, especially that emerging from advocates of the social model, often states
the importance of involving disabled people in research about disabled issues. This
Swain et al. (2003) claim is important for data collection and analysis because it
ensure the voice of disabled people is included. This is also important if the research
is not to ‘other’ disabled people. Within the DEIP team, members bring a range of
personal experiences and relationships to different disabilities including their own,
and those of family, friends, colleagues and students. This inevitably influences how
we have reacted to, and engaged with the data, as well as the literature. With
reference to myself as a wheelchair user, I have an obvious disability; the issue of
disclosure is one I can only avoid if I am not physically present. Despite this my
personal identification as a disabled person fluctuates according to the context, my
experiences and interaction with others. My relationship to disability is inevitably
personal, and whilst it brings me insider knowledge of the issues, this can also
become an obstacle. The benefits of researching within a team with wide ranging
experiences enable us to provide from within, mechanisms that support and stimulate
individual and collective discussion about the data collected, its analysis and
dissemination.
In the rest of this paper the issues of disclosure, transition, policy and legislative
requirements, such as reasonable adjustment and employability, are discussed.
Issues are illustrated with reference to comments from disabled students and
university staff. For the purposes of the discussion each issue is discussed in relation
to a specific phase of the student lifecycle. It is, however, recognised that many of
these issues can feature in all, some or none of the phases of an individual student’s
journey through higher education and into employment.
36th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings 2006
170
Ann-Marie Houghton
Pre-entry admissions: to disclose or not to disclose a disability- that is the
question?
The decision to disclose or not to disclose a disability was an individual and complex
one, influenced by factors of personal identification with the disability label,
institutional or system requirements associated with academic and financial support
and society’s awareness or response to a specific impairment. Students also gave
different reasons for the decision to disclose or not disclose and individuals
responded differently depending on their personality or situation in which they
disclosed.
Unlike previous educational sectors financial support for disabled students through
the Disabled Students’ Allowance is dependent on disclosure and an assessment of
need. The administrative system therefore links support with the individual identifying
that they have a need, despite the aim of inclusion; in effect this process reinforces
the medical model approach to funding support. Unlike school and further education,
funding is awarded to the student depending on their willingness to identify as a
disabled student. Students’ response to forms and disclosure varies. Some students
are comfortable with disclosing, ‘I’ve always disclosed my dyslexia as soon as
possible’ (Desmond), others will disclose when asked, ‘if there is a box, I’ll tick that’
(Derek), others will do so, but more reluctantly, ‘if it said on the application form, I
suppose I’d have to tick, but it is that label of disability that I don’t like‘ (Donald).
Another student, Morgan, chose not to disclose her mental health issues during the
application phase and spoke about how she:
didn’t feel comfortable not disclosing, I sometimes wondered if this was
deceptive … I think that once you are somewhere or once they meet you they
can see it’s not a big deal, but when it’s on paper that’s different.
There were a range of myths in terms of both the possible benefits and pitfalls
associated with disclosure. Generally previous experience of disclosure was
influential, with positive experiences reinforcing the benefits and increasing the
likelihood of future disclosure. This is an important point to note, because for
students with a hidden impairment this is a decision that they have to make anew
throughout the student lifecycle and beyond as they move into employment.
Entry and induction: crossing the great divide
As students enter higher education they face a host of factors associated with
transition from one educational sector to the next. Previous experiences of transition
influence the entry and induction phases and shape how they cross, what for some
is, a great divide. The divide can relate to all aspects of the student experience. For
instance, disclosure and personal presentation of self, as discussed in the context of
admissions and progression; adapting to alternative academic support systems; and
adjusting to independent living including issues associated with accommodation,
catering, socialising, and financial management.
A student’s eligibility for financial assistance provided by the Disability Students’
Allowance (DSA) is a significant feature of the entry and induction phase. It is via the
DSA that students can obtain equipment and one to one support to assist them with
their transition and studies. Even for students who have disclosed their disability and
received information about applying for the DSA prior to their actual entry, there was
often a delay in funding coming through and support being organised. For students
36th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings 2006
171
Ann-Marie Houghton
who do not disclose until they arrive, or in the case of students who are not
diagnosed until they get to university, there are often greater delays. Students
response to the DSA was mixed, several spoke about the additional burden and
responsibility. As Sally explained:
I don’t think it’s fair, because you’re already responsible for all your studies,
you’ve got this thing [DSA] that involves all these agencies and sometimes you
feel like you could just do with some support. … the first year is having to sort
all this DSA out as well as learning to do the course.
A potential gap in DSA support relates to the social aspects of student life. As a DSA
assessor explained: ‘I am sure there is an awful lot more that can be done socially to
improve student life on campus’. Crossing the divide from school to university
requires students to establish themselves in a context in which they can study
effectively, but also one in where they can engage in activities that provide additional
evidence of their employability.
On course: street level bureaucrats
Universities have a wide range of support services designed to assist all students
with academic, personal and welfare needs. In addition to the general support
mechanisms, disabled students are able to access extra services designed to
address specific needs. What is interesting in the context of the medical and social
models of disability is that although university policies profess allegiance to the social
model, at the same time they organise and publicise assistance as part of student
support, with its associated compensatory image. There was evidence that staff and
students saw disability support as something additional that allowed them to cope
with study and life at university.
There is a real tension between making available quality services offered by staff with
particular expertise and embedding support within mainstream provision. Thomas et
al. (2002) recommend that academic and student support within university should be
seen more holistically and recognised as an institutional responsibility not solely the
domain of central student support services. As one student support colleague
explained:
we had the idea that we would gradually make ourselves superfluous to
requirements because everyone would begin to own disability and there is still a
bit of, “This is one of your students”, kind of issue and we have to bat that back
in as collegial way as possible … people just have to take on board that they
are everybody’s student and we’re there for the support
An interesting observation of the actual implementation of university policy is the
extent to which colleagues involved in delivering support adopted an individual
approach. From an organisational change and delivery perspective there is clear
evidence of staff operating in what Lipsky describes as, ‘street level bureaucrats’
(Hudson, 1993). Staff involved in providing support faced the ongoing challenge of
trying to balance the policy service demands with what is practical. It was evident
when staff spoke about their own and other colleagues’ response to the requirements
of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) or university policy that they were involved
in trying to interpret what was ‘reasonable adjustment’. Although one student support
advisor described the DDA as ‘massively important’ and ‘a powerful force because
36th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings 2006
172
Ann-Marie Houghton
institutions are inert basically when it comes to change’, implementation was
inevitably at the discretion of the member of staff, or service. One careers advisor
referring to the DDA referred to it as a ‘stick to beat people with, though people find
ways around the legislation if they want to’. Although they felt there was space for
personal adaptation typical of a street level bureaucrat another student advisor
noted:
The recent legal developments have just got everybody on heightened anxiety. It’s
kind of fortunate that the changes in the DDA are not really clarified. … I think there
is a nervous, reactive, nervous response.
The individualised response does raise some interesting questions in terms of
consistency and quality of support. Inevitably, the implementation of disability
guidelines, by staff operating in different organisational sections and therefore
cultures of the university, means that within the same institution, support may be
offered by one colleague or service that might be regarded as a contradiction to
service provided by another colleague. Another tension was that whilst the overall
policy focus might be on inclusion - a feature of the social model; students seemed to
prefer support that was individual and typically hidden from their peers and tutors - a
feature more typical of the deficit medical model.
Progression and employment: another crossing of another divide
With respect to widening participation and employability there is a tendency for the
pre-entry experiences to focus on widening participation, and the leaving end-ofcourse or progression phase, to concentrate on employability (Morey, et al 2003). Yet
there are many ways in which the two phases are similar and students may face a
déjà vu experience with respect to a number of the decisions and actions they need
to undertake in each phase. The decision and response to disclosing their disability
during the job application process need to be made anew. Accessing relevant and
timely information about the availability of, and eligibility to, financial, practical and
personal support is as important for disabled graduates as disabled students entering
higher education.
Preparation for progression into employment is evident throughout the higher
education journey, and will often be influenced by the disabled graduates preuniversity experiences and influencers. For instance, Reay (1998) describes how
aspirations and future goals are influenced by a ‘deeply ingrained system of
perspectives, experiences and pre-dispositions [that] family members share’ (p528).
Although her research focuses on social class and the concept of habitus, I would
like to suggest that there is a parallel with disabled students whose views about the
future and what might be possible are also affected by what is regarded as
acceptable for someone with a disability.
When applying for university Brooks (2002) identifies three main sources of
information: social networks including family and friends, educational institutions and
written information. With respect to employment, these three sources are just as
likely to feature within the decision making process, with higher education staff
becoming part of the social capital network. In this final phase of the student lifecycle,
student awareness and staff accounts of how useful the careers service is as a
specialised source of information and network of higher education staff are explored.
36th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings 2006
173
Ann-Marie Houghton
For practical and principled reasons discussed by Moray et al. (2003) neither do
universities offer discrete or separate careers advice nor do they have a named
careers advisor for disabled students. Individual staff are, however, interested and
take a more active role in raising issues from either a specific disability perspective or
more generally within a given service. For example, a mental health advisor
highlighted needs of students with mental health issues and a careers advisor
attended a university wide disability network and then shared information with her
careers service colleagues.
Identifying who or where to get specialist advice about crossing the divide from study
into employment is not straightforward. Awareness about how or what the careers
service could offer generally, was limited, especially with respect to disability focused
information, advice and guidance. Student perception sometimes influenced their use
of the service ‘I’m not sure how clued up they are for disabled people because I know
that my needs might be completely different.’ (Pat)
There appear to be a number of similarities between finding out about work related
support systems and the information challenges and application process associated
with claiming DSA. The difficulty relating to progression into employment is that
whereas the university careers service has expertise regarding graduate
employment, they lack specific information about finance and support for individual
disabled graduates and their future employers. To counter this, one solution is to
build links with the Disability Employment Advisor at the jobcentre to ensure accurate
information. ‘Although they don’t specialise in graduates they know about funding
and schemes and I wouldn’t hesitate to get in touch with them’ (Careers Advisor).
Whilst this maybe commendable and is a practical solution it provides an additional
hurdle.
In talking to a number of students with hidden disabilities gaining information about
job related support is likely to be hindered due to their decision not to disclose. There
was a sense in which they assumed that once they left university they would be on
their own and were surprised and uncertain about the likelihood of employers
acknowledging and addressing their support needs. As extracts from Dave’s story
indicates:
If I tell them I’m dyslexic I can’t see what they could do …I hadn’t planned on
saying anything, but I didn’t know about the support you might get so I’m
thinking it might be an advantage … I would like to know though, you probably
can’t answer, but does it impact on discrimination?
The fear of discrimination and a negative response based on ignorance and a lack of
employer awareness was voiced by all students, but was more common amongst
students with mental health issues. There was evidence of the careers service
seeking to raise awareness amongst employers or offering to tackle employers if
discrimination was suspected. There was also the hope that facilitating work
experience placements and disability related legislation might begin to breakdown
perceptions and raise awareness.
Conclusion
The insights shared by students within the DEIP project highlight the individual and
the diverse range of awareness, expectation, need, support and service
36th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings 2006
174
Ann-Marie Houghton
requirements of disabled students. Similarly, the project illustrates the variety of staff
roles, responsibilities, reactions and responses to providing equality of opportunity for
disabled students. Adoption of the social model may begin to shift the problem from
individual to organisation, it does not, however, remove the challenges. As with all
cycles, there is a sense in which the student lifecycle rotates into the next one, the
career lifecycle. The DEIP project is proving useful in confirming common themes
identified by others and is helping to show the linkages between transition from
school to higher education and the subsequent transition into employment.
Reference
Brooks, R (2003) 'Young people's higher education choices: the role of family and
friends', British Journal of Sociology of Education 24 (3): 283-297
Houghton, A (2005) ‘Getting through the gate is only the first hurdle: a review of
disabled students’ support needs throughout the student lifecycle’, in P Coare, P
Armstrong, M Boice and L Morris (eds) Diversity and difference in lifelong learning
SCUTREA 35th annual conference proceedings 163-171
Hudson, B (1993) 'Michael Lipsky and street level bureaucracy, a neglected
perspective', in M Hill (eds) The policy process: A reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf
Llewellyn, A and Hogan, K (2000) 'The use and abuse of models of disability',
Disability and Society 15 (1): 157-165
Morey, A, Harvey, L, Williams, J, Saldaña, A and Mena, P (2003) HE careers
services and diversity: how careers advisory services can enhance the employability
of graduates from non-traditional backgrounds,
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/showpage/home_page/labour_market_information/g
raduate_market... Pollard, A (2003) 'Learning through life - higher education and the lifecourse of
individuals', in M Slowey and D Watson (eds) Higher education and the lifecourse,
167-186, Buckingham, Open University / SRHE
Reay, D (1998) '”Always knowing” and “never being sure”: familial and institutional
habituses and higher education', Journal of Educational Policy 13 (4): 516-529
Reeve, D (2004) 'Psycho-emotional dimensions of disability and the social model', in
C Barnes and G Mercer (eds) Implementing the social model of disability: Theory and
research, 83-100, Leeds, The Disability Press
Swain, J, French, S and Cameron, C (2003) Controversial issues in a disabling
society, Buckingham, Open University Press
Thomas, L, Quinn, J, Slack, K and Casey, L (2002) Student services: effective
approaches to retaining students in higher education: Full research report Staffordshire: Institute for Access Studies, Staffordshire University
36th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings 2006
175