A multi-stakeholder perspective on inclusion in higher education: Ruling on fragile ground

Q1 Social Sciences
Tone Ristad , Jørn Østvik , Sissel Horghagen , Lisbeth Kvam , Aud Elisabeth Witsø
{"title":"A multi-stakeholder perspective on inclusion in higher education: Ruling on fragile ground","authors":"Tone Ristad ,&nbsp;Jørn Østvik ,&nbsp;Sissel Horghagen ,&nbsp;Lisbeth Kvam ,&nbsp;Aud Elisabeth Witsø","doi":"10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In higher education, there is a lack of consistent provision for the needs of students with disabilities. This study explores the decision-making processes that lead professionals to either take or avoid inclusive actions, such as implementing universal design, granting accommodations, or making academic adjustments. Six workshops were organized and attended by students with disabilities, lecturers, support personnel, and other relevant stakeholders. The stakeholders suggested the topics and invitees for the workshops, shared their views, and learned from each other. The audio recordings from the workshops were analyzed using various techniques from constructivist grounded theory. The results showed that professionals often lack the necessary knowledge to include students with disabilities in higher education. Furthermore, there are barriers to collaboration and obtaining information, which hinder attempts to bridge the gaps. Unclear responsibilities and ignorance provide a fragile ground for decision-making and an opportunity for opting out of inclusive acts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73445,"journal":{"name":"International journal of educational research open","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374023000869/pdfft?md5=9812d4fa0f1a6f6acf4243777c623fa4&pid=1-s2.0-S2666374023000869-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of educational research open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374023000869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In higher education, there is a lack of consistent provision for the needs of students with disabilities. This study explores the decision-making processes that lead professionals to either take or avoid inclusive actions, such as implementing universal design, granting accommodations, or making academic adjustments. Six workshops were organized and attended by students with disabilities, lecturers, support personnel, and other relevant stakeholders. The stakeholders suggested the topics and invitees for the workshops, shared their views, and learned from each other. The audio recordings from the workshops were analyzed using various techniques from constructivist grounded theory. The results showed that professionals often lack the necessary knowledge to include students with disabilities in higher education. Furthermore, there are barriers to collaboration and obtaining information, which hinder attempts to bridge the gaps. Unclear responsibilities and ignorance provide a fragile ground for decision-making and an opportunity for opting out of inclusive acts.

从多方利益相关者的角度看待高等教育中的全纳问题:在脆弱的基础上作出裁决
在高等教育中,对残疾学生的需求缺乏一致的规定。本研究探讨了导致专业人员采取或避免包容性行动的决策过程,如实施通用设计、提供住宿或进行学术调整。本研究组织了六次研讨会,残疾学生、讲师、辅助人员和其他相关人员参加了研讨会。相关人员就研讨会的主题和受邀者提出了建议,分享了他们的观点,并相互学习。我们使用建构主义基础理论的各种技术对工作坊的录音进行了分析。结果显示,专业人员往往缺乏将残疾学生纳入高等教育的必要知识。此外,在合作和获取信息方面也存在障碍,这阻碍了弥合差距的努力。责任不明和无知为决策提供了脆弱的基础,也为选择放弃全纳行为提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
69 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信