How do Spanish disability support officescontribute to inclusive education in the university?

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdso20 Disability & Society ISSN: 0968-7599 (Print) 1360-0508 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20 How do Spanish disability support offices contribute to inclusive education in the university? Anabel Moriña, Rosario López-Gavira & Beatriz Morgado To cite this article: Anabel Moriña, Rosario López-Gavira & Beatriz Morgado (2017) How do Spanish disability support offices contribute to inclusive education in the university?, Disability & Society, 32:10, 1608-1626, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2017.1361812 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1361812 Published online: 29 Aug 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 302 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles How do Spanish disability support offices contribute to inclusive education in the university? AnabelMoriñaa, RosarioLópez-Gavirab and BeatrizMorgadoc aFaculty of Education, Department of Education, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; bDepartment of Accounting and Finance, School of Economics and Business, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; cFaculty of Education, Department of Educational and Developmental Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain ABSTRACT This article analyzes the functioning of disability support offices and their contribution to inclusive education in seven Spanish universities from the perspective of staff. Using a qualitative methodology, interviews with office staff were conducted, and data were analyzed through an inductive coding system. The results are organized around five themes: characteristics of disability support offices, staff training, functions performed by different services, barriers and opportunities identified by office staff, and proposals to improve attention given to disabled students. Information gathered leads to the conclusion that the work carried out in disability support offices must receive support from universities, as these offices are a key element for the access and retention of students with disabilities in the university and for the successful completion of their studies. Points of interest • Disability support offices in universities contribute to inclusive education in higher education. • The research found that disability support offices may work with a very small number of students. • Some students are not known to disability support offices because they prefer not to disclose their disabilities. • The research concluded that vocational guidance is a key factor leading to access to the university. • Disability support office staff considered they are not sufficiently trained, so more actions are needed in this direction. © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group ARTICLE HISTORY Received 3 November 2016 Accepted27 July 2017 KEYWORDS Higher education; disability support offices; inclusive education; barriers; aids CONTACT Anabel Moriña [email protected] DISABILITy & SocIETy, 2017 VoL. 32, No. 10, 1608–1626 https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1361812 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1609 Introduction The European Union is committed to inclusive education within the framework of higher education. For this purpose, it proposes the creation of university support plans and services to improve the access and educational inclusion of non-traditional students, among whom are students with disabilities (European Commission 2010). As in other countries (Tinklin, Riddell, and Wilson 2004), Spanish university regulations acknowledge that universities should provide appropriate support and counseling services for students with disabilities (Royal Decree 1393/2007). As a result of this legislation, most Spanish universities currently have a disability support office. The existence of these offices is especially necessary because in Spain, as in other countries (Korbel et al. 2011; Seale et al. 2015), the number of students with disabilities has recently increased. In fact, in 2011 there were 18,418 students with some type of disability but in 2015 there were 21,577 students with disabilities enrolled in Spanish universities. Another aspect to consider is that some research suggests students with disabilities have a greater risk of prematurely dropping out of university studies in comparison to students without disabilities (Mamiseishvili and Koch 2011; Quinn 2013). This shows that guaranteeing access to the university is not sufficient; it is also necessary to design policies and strategies that encourage students to remain in the university and successfully finish their studies (Thomas 2016). This is particularly important when taking into account that higher education offers opportunities for social and occupational inclusion (Johnson and Nord 2011). Accordingly, students with disabilities who have participated in various investigations have argued that attending university should be compulsory for people with disabilities, as it is considered a way to improve their quality of life and occupational insertion (Moriña 2017; Moswela and Mukhopadhyay 2011). However, obviously, not all students with disabilities can or wish to attend university. Nevertheless, mechanisms should be foreseen to ensure the best opportunities for people with disabilities are offered, including university or non-university training, depending on their possibilities and preferences. In the same vein and according to Tinklin, Riddell, and Wilson (2004), students with disabilities represent a challenge for the university, not only in terms of physical access to the buildings, but also with regard to a much broader access to the curriculum, teaching, and assessment systems. As Shaw (2009) noted, changes undertaken for the inclusion of university students with disabilities are beneficial for all of the students. The reality, however, is that students with disabilities must overcome an obstacle course during their university trajectory where institutions do not adopt sufficient strategies to eliminate the barriers they face (Gibson 2012, 2015). Moving toward the principles of inclusive education is still a challenge for the higher education sector. In this context, we argue, universities should adopt Oliver’s (1990) social 1610 A. MORIÑA ET AL. model of disability. This model emphasizes the need for institutions to be transformed to remove barriers so that students with disabilities can participate in the same conditions as the rest of the students. It is argued that the practices, attitudes, and policies of the social context generate the barriers and/or opportunities that hinder or favor access and participation in the different areas (Oliver 1990). According to this model, universities should avoid the use of medical labels to identify the learning needs of students with disabilities, and make efforts to establish the model as part of a daily practice, with inclusive teaching strategies (Matthews 2009). Research on the topic of higher education and students with disabilities reveals both positive opportunities and negative barriers in the students’ university trajectories (Mullins and Preyde 2013). With regard to the removal of disabling barriers, possibly the most important are attitudinal issues of faculty and staff. Research shows that reasons for dropping out of higher education are often unrelated to academic ability but instead are associated with pressures concerning support to access and accommodation and faculty attitudes (Fuller et al. 2004). In addition, other types of barriers are identified by students with disabilities, such as architectural barriers, access to information, rules that are not applied, the process of disclosure (students with disabilities often prefer to be treated like non-disabled students and will sometimes therefore conceal their disability), or methodologies that do not favor inclusion (Mullins and Preyde 2013; Strnadová, Hájková, and Kvetonová 2015). In the specific case of disclosure of impairment upon reaching the university, research has shown many students want to go unnoticed, especially students whose disabilities are invisible (Matthews 2009). They consider the stage of entering university as an opportunity to reinvent themselves and to refresh an identity that may have been damaged during other educational stages (Prowse 2009). Stigmatization (Goffman 1963) that disabled students may have experienced at other moments of their lives may lead to their preferring their disability to be undisclosed so they can enjoy a college experience as ‘normalized’ as possible and in similar conditions to their classmates. On another hand, many of the barriers identified by students with disabilities are also shared by the rest of the students (Adams and Holland 2006; Madriaga et al. 2010). Nevertheless, for people with disabilities, these issues may be more complex and may need time to resolve. With regard to the major requirements for assistance, the support services of the university, modifications of syllabus (additional study time and alternative formats for examinations, learning strategies), and family support or peer support have been identified as noteworthy (Lombardi, Murray, and Gerdes 2011; Strnadová, Hájková, and Květoňová 2015). Individual faculties within the institution are key to the success of disabled students in university life; the degree of knowledge of disability, attitudes held, and the range of strategies used to provide academic accommodations within the faculty are key determinants of inclusion. DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1611 Most studies carried out to date on disability and university concentrate on analysis of the opinion of the students with disabilities, very seldom considering the perspective of other university agents. There are few studies from the perspective of the staff of the university support services. Nevertheless, there is some evidence in the international literature, such as the works by Fossey et al. (2017), Koca-Atabey (2017), Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson (2005) and Thomas et al. (2002) which all conclude that the existence of support services in academic institutions is essential for the success of students with disabilities. In general, although mostly these services require improvement, they are recognized as facilitators of educational inclusion (López Gavira and Moriña 2015). In studies carried out in Spain (for example, Cabeza et al. 2014; Díez et al. 2011; Ferreira, Vieira, and Vidal 2014; Sánchez 2009), considerable heterogeneity of disability support offices has been highlighted. Such offices differ in name, the organizational structure in which they are located, the number and training of the service staff, the programs and services offered, or the specific legislation developed by each university. All of these differences have an impact on the quality and type of attention given to students with disabilities. The purpose of this study is to analyze the functioning of the disability support offices in seven Spanish universities and to determine how these offices can contribute to inclusive education in higher education. Method This article is based on a research project financed by the Regional Government of Andalusia (P11-SEJ-7255, 2013–2016). The goal of our study was to explore elements of policy and practice that could hinder or contribute to inclusive education in the university from the viewpoint of staff from the disability support services. Specifically, this article focuses on analyzing how the disability support offices function and contribute to the inclusion in the university of students with disabilities. Five research questions guided this work: • What are the definining characteristics of disability support services in the Spanish universities studied? • What training profile do staff have? • What functions and actions are carried out by the disability support services? • What barriers and aids are identified by office staff? • How could the actions carried out by the disability support services improve? To collect a sample of respondents we contacted the disability support services of nine public universities in the southern area of Spain (Autonomous Andalusian Community). However, only the services of seven of these universities agreed to participate. In 2015, these universities had 2170 students with disabilities, out of the total 21,577 disabled students in Spain. In contrast to other international universities, Spanish policy does not generally define specific learning challenges, 1612 A. MORIÑA ET AL. like dyslexia, as ‘disabilities.’ Few Spanish universities have an action and support protocol for these students. To identify each university and preserve confidentiality of information, we assigned a number to each university (i.e. University 1). Eight experienced professionals participated in this study (each service had one support provider, except for University 5 which had two). Regarding the professional profile, in general, the staff had an average of 10 years’ experience in the services. Most of them had no other professional experience other than that acquired through their work in disability support offices. The study used qualitative methodology. To collect data, we analyzed the websites of the various participating services and conducted semi-structured interviews about different issues: actions carried out by the service (targeting students with disabilities and the university community in general); other university services for students with disabilities; people assisted (number and characteristics); procedures that the student should fulfill to apply for assistance from the service; main barriers the office encountered to assist students with disabilities; most significant aids identified; and proposals to improve the service. Comparative data analysis of all information was done using a system of categories and codes, following the proposal of Miles and Huberman (1994). We used the MaxQDA10 computer program to analyze the data. All participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study. We guaranteed their anonymity and the confidentiality of all data collected. Participants were also informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time, and their data would then be deleted and would not be included in the analysis. Results The results of this work are organized around five themes: characteristics of the disability support services, training of the disability support offices’ staff, functions carried out by the different offices, barriers and aids identified by the staff of these offices, and proposals to improve the disability support services of the universities. Characteristics of university disability support offices Most of the disability support services were created between 2004 and 2008, with the exception of University 5 which has been working with disabled students since 1992. In general, there is only one experienced professional in the analyzed services, but the participants informed us that other coworkers from similar services (administration staff, scholarship holders, students in practices) helped them, although they were not directly employed by the support office. The support office name differed in each university. In some universities it is called ‘Unit of attention to …,’ in others ‘Support service for …,’ and in one of them ‘Support Office for People with Disabilities.’ Likewise, the office was not DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1613 always linked to the same area of university management. In some universities, it was ascribed to the Students’ Vice Rector, in others to the Rector of Culture and Commitment or Social Responsibility, and in one institution (University 2) to the Support Service of the University Community. With regard to the rules that govern these services, the framework of the participant universities was the European and State legislation on disability, as well as the Organic Law of Universities of the Government of Spain (Royal Decree 1393/2007). However, each university had developed its own set of specific rules to attend to students with disabilities. Although the services were generally comparable, each university used its own resources and protocols to run its programs and provide its services. In relation to the service users, the offices target the entire university community but mainly attended to students with disabilities. Regarding the initial procedure to contact the students, all of the offices carried out an informative campaign to disseminate their services by means of email, websites, or telephone. Subsequently, interested users came to the service to express their needs, their resources, and the actions they required. However, in accordance with rules on personal data protection, the services did not inform the faculty members that students with disabilities would be attending their classes. The students themselves were advised they could contact each professor individually to explain their situation if they considered it appropriate. The number of students that each office could assist varied as a function of size of the university, ranging from 80 to 600 students. However, very few students with disabilities came to the services. For example, in University 3, with a population of students with disabilities exceeding 500, only about 50 students requested aid annually. Lastly, the different offices attended to students with all types of disabilities. However, in three universities they highlighted the increased inflow to the offices of students with mental health issues due to their increased presence in the university. The participants in the study thought that it is more difficult to meet these students’ needs than those of other users: Students with academic needs related to mental disability require more follow-up because they need more orientation … We meet with them frequently to see how their studies are going, how they are organizing their work and, most importantly, their inclusion in the classroom. (University 2) Training of the disability support offices’ staff The interviewed staff had received training related to education and attention to diversity. Specifically, most of the staff of these services were licensed in psychology, pedagogy, or social work. They had received complementary training through diverse master’s degrees, courses, and conferences and they conducted research on disability: 1614 A. MORIÑA ET AL. Since I began my work in this unit, I’ve been constantly upcycling, I try to participate in every congress, conference, or seminar held on attention to disability, I go as a listener or else I present some paper in this area. (University 2) I am a psychologist, expert in early attention … both my thesis and my work prior to the thesis were related to the architectural barriers of University 3. I have received different training courses about sensitivity and university and I am performing several investigations about this. (University 3) The participants indicated that continuous training was essential to appropriately meet the needs of students with disability, as well as to offer adequate advice to faculty members: The upcycling continuum is absolutely essential because the profile of students with disability entering University 2 is very different from that of many years ago, which was more of a visual and auditory level, and now there is more of a mental level and hence, the importance of this continuous training. (University 2) Participants informed us about a network of support services in Andalusia that helps to coordinate the diverse staff from Andalusian universities, and that they are trying to work in the same direction: In Andalusia, we have a work group [offering us] physical and virtual contacts and we have more or less unified the service programs, which is important for direct work. (University 7) The support offices staff also mentioned a network in Spain, promoted by the ‘Real Patronato de Discapacidad’ (Royal Board on Disability), which organizes annual meetings to exchange experiences and propose actions to improve the different services. In addition, the Universia Foundation (a private non-profit organization that promotes higher inclusive education and access to qualified employment for people with disabilities in Spain) has a cooperative university network in Spanish and Portuguese language (made up of 1401 institutions of higher education from 23 Iberian-American countries). These initiatives offer considerable support both to the disability support offices and to the students themselves. Functions and actions performed by disability support services The functions performed by each service were varied and orientated both toward students with disabilities and toward the rest of the university community. The following outlines the most relevant functions: • facilitation of access to the university in the first year; • management of necessary resources for students’ inclusion in the university and follow-up of the accomplishment of their studies; • offering information about the resources offered by the university; • issuing reports to guide faculty staff about the necessary curricular accommodations; DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1615 • generally attending to issues raised by students, faculty staff, and administration staff; and • supporting occupational inclusion. After the professionals determine the students’ needs, they deal with the necessary modifications to promote their inclusion and to offer certain resources to achieve this goal: material resources – laptops, self-copying notebooks, specific software programs – and human resources – collaborating students or sign language interpreters. One of the participant universities (University 4) had a specific mobility program for students with disabilities and students from foreign universities. Besides these actions for students with disabilities, the disability support services also conducted other actions targeting the educational community. Specifically, they offered orientation to the faculty and administration staff about the modifications and resources they should provide to these students. Accordingly, most of the universities offered awareness and training programs targeting the faculty and administration staff. Two of the universities had created the role of the ‘supporting academic tutor.’ This was a volunteer faculty member who advised students with disabilities in the different faculties. In other universities, support for students lay exclusively with the office: In every faculty, there are faculty-tutors, who volunteer to tutor students with disabilities. The information is sent to them and they are responsible for distributing it to the other faculty members. (University 5) Lastly, except for University 7, these offices also coordinated other university services that offered psychological attention and orientation, scholarships, and training for employment. Barriers and aids identified in the disability support services Focusing firstly on barriers, it should be noted that the participating universities could not attend to all of the students with disabilities, because not everyone eligible to be included in this group made their disability known or came to the service: The main barrier, I think, is that many students do not want to come to the service. For example, there may be 500-some disabled students enrolled, but not all of them come, I attend to an average of 50 or 60 per course. (University 3) Another obstacle was related to the need for information and guidance. Some students thought that they did not receive enough information about enrolment formalities and other aspects of the university, and they also requested more orientation (especially concerning which university studies to choose): We apply surveys and one of the most demanded topics are the items referring to information, not only university formalities, but orientation about which career to choose. Not in the sense of telling them ‘don’t study this,’ but guiding them so they know that ‘if 1622 A. MORIÑA ET AL. support students with disabilities. It would also be beneficial to expand the study with data from other universities both at the national and international levels. For example, if we knew how disability support services work in the rest of Spanish universities, we could perform comparative analyses of these services to determine actions for improvement, which would be very enriching. Future research We recommend future research to expand the analyses to include the opinions of other groups involved in supporting disabled students at university and, as well, to include investigation within more universities. In addition, in Spain we recommend performing research projects to examine the networks between different national and Andalusian universities. These studies might lead to new proposals for strengthening networks to better coordinate their work and facilitate inclusion of disabled students so that all the universities would offer them the same high-quality resources and the same opportunities. Another line of research could be the creation and assessment of disability support groups within faculties. Pilot projects could be designed in a faculty to create a group of professors, students, and staff to work together to agree on improvements that benefit and support the students with disabilities in that faculty. Further studies could also be carried out with regard to training. Training programs could be designed, developed, and evaluated to offer advice to professors and other university providers based on the tenets of inclusive pedagogy. Finally with the aim of improving the service that the universities provide to students with disabilities in future, good practice guidance could be created for disability support services. A helpful example to follow can be found in the proposals made by the Association for Higher Education Access and Disability (AHEAD Ireland) or the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD USA). Among other proposals, these associations offer interesting guides for universal design, inclusive teaching, and learning or guides to disclosure. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This work was supported by the Regional Government of Andalusia [Grant P11-SEJ-7255]. ORCID Anabel Moriña http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0852-7523 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1623 References Adams, M., and S. Holland. 2006. “Improving Access to Higher Education for Disabled People.” In Towards Inclusive Learning in Higher Education, edited by M. Adams and S. Brown, 10–22. London: Routledge. Allard, W. G. 1987. “Keeping LD Students in College.” Academic Therapy 22 (4): 359–365. Barnes, C. 2007. “Disability, Higher Education and the Inclusive Society.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (1): 135–145. Bezrukova, K., K. A. Jehn, and C. S. Spell. 2012. “Reviewing Diversity Training: Where We Have Been and Where We Should Go.” Academic of Management Learning & Education 11 (2): 207–227. doi: 10.5465/amle.2008.0090. Burgstahler, S. 2015. “Opening Doors or Slamming Them Shut? Online Learning Practices and Students with Disabilities.” Social Inclusion 3 (6): 69–79. doi: 10.17645/si.v3i6.420. Cabeza L. F., M. D. Cabello, F. Grijalbo, C. Guillamó, and A. Luque. 2014, November. Situación, características y funciones de los servicios universitarios de apoyo a estudiantes con discapacidad. Estado de la cuestión [Characteristics and Functions of University Support Services to Students With Disabilities. State of Affairs]. Paper presented at the II International Conference in University and Disability, Madrid. Debrand, C. C., and C. H. Salzberg. 2005. “A Validated Curriculum to Provide Training to Faculty regarding Students with Disabilities in Higher Education.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 18 (1): 49–62. Díez, E., A. Alonso, M. A. Verdugo, M. Campo, I. Sancho, S. Sánchez, I. Calvo, and E. Moral. 2011. Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior: estándares e indicadores de buenas prácticas para la atención a estudiantes universitarios con discapacidad [European Space for Higher Education: Standards and Indicators of Good Practice for Attention to College Students With Disabilities]. Salamanca: INICO. European Commission. 2010. European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010 :0636:FIN:en:PDF Ferreira, C., M. J. Vieira, and J. Vidal. 2014. “La atención a los estudiantes1ccon discapacidad en las instituciones de educación superior [Attention to Students With Disabilities in Higher Education Institutions. The Case of Catalonia].” Revista de Investigación Educativa 32 (1): 139– 157. doi:https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.32.1.171711 Fordyce M., S. Riddell, R. O’Neill, and E. Weedon. 2013. Post-School Transitions of People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Final Report. https://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/education/creid/ Reports/30i_NDCS_PostSchTransit_InterimRpt.pdf Fossey, E., L. Chaffey, A. Venville, P. Ennals, J. Douglas, and C. Bigby. 2017. “Navigating the Complexity of Disability Support in Tertiary Education: Perspectives of Students and Disability Service Staff.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (8): 822–832. doi:10.1080/13603 116.2017.1278798. Fuller, M., M. Healey, A. 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: 303–318. doi:10.1080/03075070410001682592. Gairín J., and C. I. Suárez 2014. “Clarificar e identificar a los grupos vulnerables [Clarify and Identify Vulnerable Groups].” In Colectivos vulnerables en la Universidad. Reflexiones y propuestas para la intervención [Vulnerable Groups at the University. Reflections and Proposals for Intervention], edited by J. Gairín, 33–62). Madrid: Wolters Kluwer España. Garrison-Wade, D. F. 2012. “Listening to Their Voices: Factors That Inhibit or Enhance Postsecondary Outcomes for Students’ with Disabilities.” International Journal of Special Education 27 (2): 113–125. 1624 A. MORIÑA ET AL. Gibson, S. 2012. “Narrative Accounts of University Education: Socio-Cultural Perspectives of Students with Disabilities.” Disability & Society 27 (3): 353–369. doi:10.1080/09687599.201 2.654987. Gibson, S. 2015. “When Rights Are Not Enough: What is? Moving towards New Pedagogy for Inclusive Education within UK Universities.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (8): 875–886. doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1015177. Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hadjikakou, K., and D. Hartas. 2008. “Higher Education Provision for Students with Disabilities in Cyprus.” Higher Education 55: 103–119. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9070-8. Healey M., A. Jenkins, J. Leach, and C. Roberts. 2001. Issues in Providing Learning Support for Disabled Students Undertaking Fieldwork and Related Activities. Gloucestershire, UK: Geography Discipline Network (GDN). https://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/disabil/overview/overview.pdf. Hitch, D., K. Dell, and H. Larkin. 2016. “Does Universal Design Education Impact on the Attitudes of Architecture Students towards People with Disability?” Journal of Accessibility and Design for All 6 (1): 26–48. doi:10.17411/jacces.v6i1.103. Hong, B. S. S. 2015. “Qualitative Analysis of the Barriers College Students with Disabilities Experience in Higher Education.” Journal of College Student Development 56 (3): 209–226. doi:10.1353/csd.2015.0032. Jacklin A., C. Robinson, L. O’Meara, and A. Harris. 2007. Improving the Experiences of Disabled Students in Higher Education. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/ jacklin.pdf Johnson, D. R., and D. Nord. 2011. “Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: Participating in America’s Future.” Impact 23 (3): 2–3. Koca-Atabey, M. 2017. “Re-Visiting the Role of Disability Coordinators: The Changing Needs of Disabled Students and Current Support Strategies from a UK University.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 32 (1): 137–145. doi:10.1080/08856257.2016.1254969. Korbel, D. M., J. H. Lucia, C. M. Wenzel, and B. G. Anderson. 2011. “Collaboration Strategies to Facilitate Successful Transition of Students with Disabilities in a Changing Higher Education Environment.” New Directions for Higher Education 2011: 17–25. doi:10.1002/he.430. Lombardi, A. R., C. Murray, and H. Gerdes. 2011. “College Faculty and Inclusive Instruction: SelfReported Attitudes and Actions Pertaining to Universal Design.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 4 (4): 250–261. doi:10.1037/a0024961. López Gavira, R., and A. Moriña. 2015. “Hidden Voices in Higher Education: Inclusive Policies and Practices in Social Science and Law Classrooms.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (4): 365–378. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.935812. Love, T. S., N. Kresier, E. Camargo, M. Grubbs, E. J. Kin, P. L. Burge, and S. M. Culver. 2015. “STEM Faculty Experiences with Students with Disabilities at a Land Grant Institution.” Journal of Education and Training Studies 3 (1): 27–38. Madriaga, M., K. Hanson, C. Heaton, H. Kay, Sarah Newitt, and A. Walker. 2010. “Confronting Similar Challenges? Disabled and Non-Disabled Students’ Learning and Assessment Experiences.” Studies in Higher Education 35 (6): 647–658. doi:10.1080/03075070903222633. Mamiseishvili, K., and L. Koch. 2011. “First-to-Second-Year Persistence of Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Institutions in the United States.” Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin 54 (2): 93–105. doi:10.1177/0034355210382580. Martin, J. M. 2010. “Stigma and Student Mental Health in Higher Education.” Higher Education Research & Development 29 (3): 259–274. doi:10.1080/07294360903470969. Matthews, N. 2009. “Teaching the ‘Invisible’ Disabled Students in the Classroom: Disclosure, Inclusion and the Social Model of Disability.” Teaching in Higher Education 14: 229–239. doi: 10.1080/13562510902898809. DISABILITY & SOCIETY 1625 Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milic Babic, M., and M. Dowling. 2015. “Social Support, the Presence of Barriers and Ideas for the Future from Students with Disabilities in the Higher Education System in Croatia.” Disability & Society 30 (4): 614–629. doi:10.1080/09687599.2015.1037949. Moriña, A. 2017. “‘We Aren’t Heroes, We’re Survivors’: Higher Education as an Opportunity for Students with Disabilities to Reinvent an Identity.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 41 (2): 215–226. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2015.1070402. Moswela, E., and S. Mukhopadhyay. 2011. “Asking for Too Much? The Voices of Students with Disabilities in Botswana.” Disability & Society 26: 307–319. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2011.560414. Mullins, L., and M. Preyde. 2013. “The Lived Experience of Students with an Invisible Disability at a Canadian University.” Disability & Society 28 (2): 147–160. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.752127. Oliver, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Oliver, M. 2013. “The Social Model of Disability: Thirty Years on.” Disability & Society 28 (7): 1024– 1026. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2013.818773. Powell, J. J. W. 2013. “From Ableism to Accessibility in the Universal Design University.” Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal 8 (4): 33–45. https://www.rds.hawaii.edu/ojs/ index.php/journal/index Prowse, S. 2009. “Institutional Construction of Disabled Students.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31 (1): 89–96. doi:10.1080/13600800802559302. Quinn, J. 2013. Drop-out and Completion in Higher Education in Europe among Students from under-Represented Groups. NESET for the European Commission. https://www.nesetweb.eu Riddell, S., and E. Weedon. 2014. “Disabled Students in Higher Education: Discourses of Disability and the Negotiation of Identity.” International Journal of Educational Research 63: 38–46. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.008. Riddell, S., T. Tinklin, and A. Wilson. 2005. Disabled Students in Higher Education: Perspectives on Widening Access and Changing Policy. London: Routledge. Roberts, J. B., L. A. Crittenden, and J. C. Crittenden. 2011. “Students with Disabilities and Online Learning: A Cross-Institutional Study of Perceived Satisfaction with Accessibility Compliance and Services.” The Internet and Higher Education 14 (4): 242–250. doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2011.05.004. Rose, D. H., and A. Meyer. 2002. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Royal Decree. 1393/2007. Retrieved from https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2007/BOE-A-200718770-consolidado.pdf Sánchez, A. 2009. Integración educativa y social de los estudiantes con discapacidad en la Universidad de Almería [Educational and Social Integration of Students with Disabilities at the University of Almería]. Almería (Spain): Editorial Universidad de Almería. Schelley, C. L., P. L. Davies, and C. L. Spooner. 2011. “Student Perceptions of Faculty Implementation of Universal Design for Learning.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 24 (1): 17–30. Seale, J., J. Georgeson, C. Mamas, and J. Swain. 2015. “Not the Right Kind of ‘Digital Capital’? An Examination of the Complex Relationship between Disabled Students, Their Technologies and Higher Education Institutions.” Computers & Education 82: 118–128. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2014.11.007. Shah, M., A. Bennett, and E. Southgate, eds. 2016. Widening Higher Education Participation. a Global Perspective. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Shaw, J. 2009. “The Diversity Paradox: Does Student Diversity Enhance or Challenge Excellence?” Journal of Further and Higher Education 33: 321–331. doi:10.1080/03098770903266018. 1626 A. MORIÑA ET AL. Strnadová, I., V. Hájková, and L. Květoňová. 2015. “Voices of University Students with Disabilities: Inclusive Education on the Tertiary Level – A Reality or a Distant Dream?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (10): 1080–1095. doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1037868. Teachability. 2002. Teachability Project: Creating an Accessible Curriculum for Students with Disabilities. Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde. Thomas, L. 2016. “Developing Inclusive Learning to Improve the Engagement, Belonging, Retention, and Success of Students from Diverse Groups.” In Widening Higher Education Participation, edited by M. Shah, A. Bennett and E. Southgate, 135–159. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Thomas, L., J. Quinn, K. Slack, and L. Casey. 2002. Student Services: Effective Approaches to Retaining Students in Higher Education. Stoke on Trent, UK: Institute for Access Studies, Staffordshire University. 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 (5): 637–657. doi:10.1080/0307507042000261599. Tinto, V. 1988. “Stages of Student Departure: Reflections on the Longitudinal Character of Student Learning.” The Journal of Higher Education 59 (4): 438–455. Waitoller, F. R., and K. A. K. King Thorius. 2016. “Cross-Pollinating Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an Inclusive Pedagogy That Accounts for Dis/ Ability.” Harvard Educational Review 86 (3): 366–389. doi: https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-504586.3.366.