ERIC EJ1040544: Applying Universal Design to Disability Service Provision: Outcome Analysis of a Universal Design (UD) Audit

2014·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 209 - 222 209
PRACTICE BRIEF
Applying Universal Design to Disability Service Provision:
Outcome Analysis of a Universal Design (UD) Audit
Tanja Beck
Patricia Diaz del Castillo
Frederic Fovet
Heather Mole
Brodie Noga
McGill University
Abstract
This article presents out an outcome analysis of a Universal Design (UD) audit to the various professional facets
of a disability service (DS) provider’s office on a large North American campus. The context of the audit is a
broad campus-wide drive to implement Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in teaching practices. In an effort
for consistency and transparency, the DS staff decided to apply the principles of UDL that were being promoted to
the very core of the user interface. The authors’ hypothesis is that DS providers themselves create environmental
and procedural barriers and that, as promoters of barrier free access, they must carefully examine their professional
framework. The data analyzed in the audit was qualitative and has been collected from unit staff and service users
over a one year period.
Keywords: Universal design, UD audit, reflective practice, disability service provider
The opportunity for this practice brief arose fol- of all aspects of DS provision. Whenever possible, the
lowing a disability service (DS) unit`s decision to analysis attempts to move beyond the anecdotal obser-
impose the universal design lens on its own service vations to question the applicability of these results to
provision in the form of a UD audit. Universal Design other campuses and the DS fi eld as a whole.
(UD) is a set of principles for designing products and
creating environments that are equally accessible to Context
a diverse user base (Ofi esh & McAfee, 2006; Ofi esh,
Rojas, & Ward, 2006). Much of the literature sur- The campus in question is a large North American
rounding the implementation of UD in higher education campus of over 37,000 students. The DS provider’s
focuses on the obstacles and barriers course instructors offi ce has a long history on this campus and has been
encounter when designing or delivering their course in existence for over twenty years, with a substantial
(Izzo, Murray, & Novak, 2008; LaRocco & Wilken, track record when it comes to meeting the needs of
2013). To date, very little attention has been paid to the students with traditional disabilities. The unit has
implications that UD implementation have for service struggled to adapt its proactive efforts to address the
providers. This article presents an outcome analysis of needs of students with non-visible disabilities. While
a twelve month effort to place DS provision in line with UD had been explicitly embraced for several years on
the wider principles of universal design. We carried the unit`s website and promotional materials, it must
out this analysis through a multifaceted observation be accepted that it has had little success with regards
210 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
to hands-on UD implementation. Strategic manage- detail before the audit begun. The aim was not to create
ment decisions were taken in summer 2011 to intensify a checklist and later assess the outcome of its applica-
efforts to implement UD in campus practices and, as tion. On the contrary, the goal was to empower each
a result, a lobbying plan was devised. The goals and participant-researcher to apply the essential principles of
tools selected were successful and the outcome became UD – the removal of barriers – wherever they could be
immediately tangible when UD implementation was identifi ed. The central premise of UD is the identifi ca-
discussed in great detail at a meeting of the university`s tion and removal of barriers to access and the creation
executive bodies in Fall 2012. of inclusive environments. Consequently the fi rst part
Through this process, the DS providers became of the audit consisted of creating a barrier analysis. The
increasingly concerned with a disparity between their offi ce then tried to erode these barriers using the three
external campus message of promoting UD and their central principles of UDL: multiple means of represen-
internal practices. While the offi ce endorsed and tation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means
encouraged the use of online tools that created more of engagement (Rose & Gravel, 2010).
universal access (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous
chat, online discussion forums, and virtual document Literature Review
depository), the unit relied heavily on paper-based
procedures and offered no alternative to in-person ap- It seems important to begin by briefl y refer to the
pointments. It became increasingly apparent that these existing literature on UD. The literature on UD in
service processes, per se, created barriers for students. higher education is abundant and far ranging (Gradel &
In order to receive accommodations for fi nal exams, Edson, 2010; Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, & Abar-
students were required to complete and submit an exam banell, 2006). The aim of the audit was not to address
registration form. This creates barriers on multiple lev- each detailed item of the UD framework but, rather,
els: print based material is one of the biggest barriers to develop a global understanding of the key elements
for students with various impairments. Additionally, of UD and then apply them to DS service provision.
students had to visit the offi ce in person to submit the This literature can be divided between literature on
required forms. This could create unnecessary barri- UDL (Rose & Gravel, 2010) and Universal Design for
ers for students with physical impairments or students Instruction (UDI) (Embry, Parker, McGuire, & Scott,
with social phobias or anxiety disorders. Additionally, 2005). The unit staff did not adopt a rigid defi nition
students affected by a wide spectrum of attentional of the theoretical model; the intention was not to ad-
impairments often forgot the process entirely and, thus, here to each technical recommendation enumerated in
lost access to their accommodations. UD literature but to identify the spirit of the proposed
A year into this campus-wide UD implementation framework and examine its applicability to DS service
effort, the unit decided to assess the implementation of provision. In this sense, the participant-researchers
its own access guidelines on its internal procedures in did not narrow their use of literature to either UDL or
the form of a UD audit. The audit was planned as a pro- UDI specifi cally. The three principles of UDL (Rose &
gressive, ongoing professional development exercise. Gravel, 2010) are more prominent in the unit`s analysis
It was decided that as much data as possible should be of potential barriers and solutions.
collected through this process in order to allow for an A key notion to retain seemed to be the idea that
outcome analysis. The motivational factors that led environments and practices can equally enable or
to this decision were the following: (a) a desire for disable individuals. In this sense, it takes the focus
increased consistency between external messaging and away from individual user characteristics to highlight
internal procedures; (b) transparency with students and instead the environment`s ability to widen or restrict
concern vis-à-vis users that procedures were having a access. In this sense, the researchers see UD as the
contradictory effect; (c) a social justice preoccupation procedural translation and application of the social
that procedures were not only restricting access, but model of disability (Swain, French, Barnes, & Thomas,
allowing power and privilege dynamics to be deployed 2004) and not as a stand-alone technique of access.
within the service provision framework. The other critical dimension in the defi nition of UD
The various dimensions of the audit process will we emphasized is the fact that it is seen as a sustain-
not be described in detail, as they were not designed in able, environment-focused framework to manage dis-
Beck, Diaz del Castillo, Fovet, Mole, & Noga; Applying Universal Design 211
abilities issues. The links between sustainability and notion that a number of barriers in their every day
UD are rarely explicitly described (Colorado State practices could be eliminated through a common sense
University, 2013) but it often implicitly weaves the analysis. The goal was to focus on realistic solutions
discourse on UD (Staeger-Wilson & Sampson, 2012). that were immediately achievable, rather than outside
It seemed important to stress this facet as part of the the individual`s reach.
unit`s endeavours: change is always diffi cult in terms Much of the literature on UD in higher education
of resource management, whether human or material. focuses on its implementation within the pedagogical
If a proposed change puts in place practices that are context (i.e., the classroom) by highlighting the hurdles
more sustainable, the management of change takes encountered by course instructors (Harrison, 2006).
on a dimension that is much more palatable to the There is, to date, little literature on the impact of UD
actors (Spaargaren, 2011). The interest for sustain- implementation for service users, though barriers en-
able pedagogical practices in higher education is cer- countered by DS providers in technology-based strat-
tainly triggering increasing interest (Ritchie, 2013). egy instruction have begun to be scrutinized (Parker,
Links to UD are not always explicit, but the authors White, Collins, Banerjee, & McGuire, 2009). This is
explored this angle systematically in its messaging the gap that this practice brief seeks to explore.
to staff members.
It is important to remember that UD in essence Methodology
requires the service provider, course instructor, or
product creator to return to the conception phase of The working hypothesis of this audit was that, by
his or her practices. It is essential to remember this applying principles of UD to DS provision, tangible
as, too often, discussions about UD implementation results showing a positive evolution would be ob-
are narrowed down to redundant debates that attempt served. We anticipated fi nding evidence of a positive
to remediate problematic end products rather than evolution in both user satisfaction and unit staff percep-
addressing initial conceptions. UD`s origins as an tions, indicating an erosion of existing barriers. While
architectural concept are important in this refl ection, carrying out the audit, we collected qualitative data
as it is much easier to create a universally accessible from students and unit staff. The data collected from
built space from conception than it is to retrofi t the students emerged from the regular quality assessment
building after the public begins to use it. The authors exercises that are scheduled throughout the year. We
therefore repeatedly acknowledged that implementing also collected student data through existing consulta-
UD would mean revisiting processes and practices tions between the unit and the student advisory com-
from the start, rather than trying to fi x the unfi xable mittee, key liaison individuals, and numerous student
later (McGuire, Scott & Shaw, 2004). UD asks the interns who collaborate on projects with the unit. Data
practitioner to devise access at the creative stage; it collected from staff was accumulated through sched-
is therefore quite distinct from a retrofi tting exercise. uled staff meetings, HR reviews, and key strategic
Awareness had to be developed in the DS unit about get-together sessions (e.g., annual retreat, professional
the burden this would create for the team. development debriefi ng exercises, and brainstorming
The final dimension of UD that the authors of quality assurance).
highlighted throughout this project is the fact that Signifi cant efforts were made to address research-
UD implementation is a progressive exploration and er-participant power dynamics and to limit situations
transformation. There is no such thing as a fully UD where the participants would have felt pressured to
service delivery model. Service delivery or user in- answer in a certain fashion. Perfect collaborative re-
terface can be more or less UD on a wide spectrum of search – just like UD – remains a working ideal rather
accessibility (Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005). It is than a fully achievable goal. Ethical steps were taken
important to realize how wide the UD goals are and to ensure that participants could contribute freely to
that full attainment of the criteria is wishful thinking. discussions on outcome and impact on services without
It was very important to infuse this awareness into feeling that dynamics of power or authority came in the
the team`s working defi nition so as not to demoralize way. The student feedback was given anonymously
staff or create overly ambitious objectives. Participants by means of large scale surveying, for example, and
were encouraged to empower themselves through the members of the student advisory committee are, as a
212 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
matter of policy, invited to participate and comment Findings
in a variety of ways that bear no relation to their own
service provision. In the case of staff members, the Barrier-free interface
audit was carried out with each individual in one-on- The fi rst element of focus for the UD audit was
one brainstorming sessions led by a peer in a process the interface with users. Of particular concern was
explicitly dissociated from reviews and job appraisals. the fact that the bulk of communications with students
The research collaboration included student advo- still required either paper, visits to the offi ce, or ap-
cates, liaison individuals from other campus units, pointments. This was true of most exam registration
and unit staff members. procedures but also of advising. The authors decided
The data analysis described in this practice brief to become entirely “paper free” from September 2012.
constitutes a comparative barriers analysis (Barnes, Ol- This process involved eliminating the use of all forms,
iver, & Barton, 2002) for each dimension of the unit`s letters, and printed material in interactions and ex-
activities, assessing differences recorded between changes with service users. An example of this was the
processes in place before the audit and after twelve elimination of paper-based exam registration forms that
months of refl ective transformation. We collected were required to be completed by students to register
data about these aspects of the DS providers’ work: (a) for exams, a change warmly welcomed by students
barrier-free user interface; (b) initial meeting and ap- (see Appendix A). The perception from users and staff
proach to documentation; (c) outreach towards a new, members alike was that this in itself went a long way to
fl uid, and emerging user base; (d) the development of removing barriers for the students. “Changing to online
faculty resources; and (e) management of change. We forms for exams was a huge improvement for me. I did
did not choose to examine the effect of the UD audit not appreciate previously having to run around after
on specifi c job descriptions. Indeed, selecting study my professors begging them to fi ll out exam forms.
dimensions such as “exams” or “adviser relations” Thank you for changing the system,” reports a student
would have severely narrowed down the exercise and in a survey carried out in 2013 (see Appendix A). This
limited it to a classic HR review. The aim of the audit statement was characteristic of the feedback recorded
and this practice brief was to take as a starting point through this process. Staff members in fact fed their
dimensions in DS provision that were likely to create own perceptions of the outcomes they had experienced
barriers for users and to then tackle these various facets into several academic and professional presentations
of our professional activity. (Mole & Bennett, 2013).
The global context of the project is action research This change in practice went further than simply
in the sense that the researchers were also profession- transferring existing forms to a web forum. Team mem-
als of the unit who collaboratively committed to the bers were encouraged to re-examine requests made on
research, underwent the audit, and collected the re- users and to eliminate all unnecessary demands. Oc-
sulting data (Reason, 2003). The staff members were casions when users are asked to interact with the offi ce
also engaged participants who experienced several staff in person were therefore reduced signifi cantly. It
benefi ts. More than mere actors, they had an interest became apparent that the unit, like many administra-
in examining the transactional results of the exercise tive organizations, had over time allowed procedures
in order to improve their practice and user satisfaction. to develop their own raison d’être without necessarily
The exploratory dimension of the project fi t in the adding to the smooth running of services. In many
wider mandate of the offi ce and in its commitment to cases, it became apparent that these procedures were
quality assurance. Participants were also empowered as burdensome for staff as for students, since the data
on a daily basis to modify their professional practices produced by form-fi lling in turn required data entry and
in order to achieve more equitable outcomes. The DS fi ling by staff. A UDL approach was encouraged ask-
offi ce was identifi ed, consequently, as a professional ing staff members to refl ect on UDL’s three principles
environment particularly suited to action research and to explore how the integration of UDL into the DS
(Wright & Marquez, 2006). unit’s daily practices could widen access for students.
Even when procedures could not be entirely eliminated,
the staff participants were encouraged to carry out the
barriers analysis on a narrower scale and to determine
Beck, Diaz del Castillo, Fovet, Mole, & Noga; Applying Universal Design 213
(a) whether the procedure included several steps, and cal placing of documentation on a desk between the
(b) if some of these steps could be eliminated. adviser and the service user, and the weight of the di-
Last but not least, the team decided that the barriers agnostic perspective in determining students’ eligibility
analysis should be extended to the advising relation- for accommodations.
ship itself. It was apparent that requiring students to At worst this might well deter students unwill-
come to the DS offi ce in person when they might not ing to submit to such procedures from accessing the
be available or able to make their way to our offi ce DS offi ce. Literature on postsecondary transition for
also created barriers. It was therefore decided to of- students with disabilities has amply evidenced their
fer virtual registration and advising (see Appendix B). reticence to continue accessing services in the format
Ethical aspects were examined at length but the team prescribed (National Longitudinal Transition Study-2
failed to see any arguments suffi ciently powerful to [NLTS-2], 2005; Marshak, Van Wieren, Raeke Fer-
prohibit this exploration. The confi dentiality of the rell, Swiss & Dugan, 2010). At best it communicates
discussions was not compromised, the use of syn- a clinical view of a person and implies that his/her
chronous virtual platform was perceived to maintain disability is the problem, not the environment on
the solemnity of formal face-to-face meetings, and the campus. The terminology has been revised and the
ability to observe non-verbal communication reassured unit`s website reworded to better refl ect a user’s per-
the advisers that all aspects of effective communica- spective. To this end, documentation is not required
tion remained in place. The results were immediately in what is now framed simply as a “fi rst appointment.”
tangible. Results of a satisfaction survey carried out Opening words are strategically utilized now by DS
amongst service users showed that only a few months staff: “What brings you here today?” equalizing power
after its introduction, Skype was already being used by dynamics and giving the student’s story legitimacy.
15% of students seeking access advice (see Appendix The Association on Higher Education and Disability
A). The survey was orchestrated electronically by stu- documentation guidelines ([AHEAD], 2012) were
dent services at the campus in question, thus explicitly seen to fi t comfortably with this refl ective exercise and
creating ethical distance between the organizers and have been proactively integrated into the offi ce`s ethos.
the unit in question. It was sent out via email to the The conversation centers on barriers experienced by
entire user base of the offi ce and a participation rate students in their current environment.
of 25% was recorded. This was the fi rst survey of this
kind attempted by the unit and it is now hoped that Reaching a New, Fluid And Emerging User Base
the evaluation can be renewed each spring in order to Barriers are also created through public relations,
monitor the impact of further UD improvements on branding, and outreach work. Our implementation of
the service user experience. a social model of disability raises interesting questions
concerning the clear delineation of a “user population”
Initial Meeting and Approach to Documentation for a DS provider. If the environment creates barriers
Face-to-face interaction with users was scrutinized and disables students, then there can really be no such
as well. Even when students successfully made their thing as a tangible, clearly identifi able body of students
way to the offi ce, it was felt that barriers still remained associated with such an offi ce. The user population
and that these shaped and narrowed the relationship must inherently be seen as fl uid and free fl owing. A
between students and access advisers. The barriers student might be in a disabling situation one semester
identifi ed were globally attributed to the imprint of or within one specifi c class where pedagogical delivery
the medical model of disability theory on the content and evaluation methods do not fi t his or her learning
and format of access appointments. The barriers, often profi le, but not in another semester or class. Defi ning
loaded with symbolic meaning, are both verbal and one`s role with too much rigidity or assuming that
non-verbal. The team examined the typical routine of students can be categorised and labelled as users or
the access appointment and identifi ed key elements non-users of a service, therefore, creates attitudinal bar-
that amounted to barriers and fl avoured the interaction. riers. The team`s solution has been to involve students
Examples included the request for documentation in in redefi ning the unit`s outreach message. The DS
advance of an appointment, waiting area protocol and offi ce in collaboration with its student advisory body
offi ce terminology (“intake appointment”), the physi- has devised advertising material that targets students
214 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
by identifying possible campus barriers. One example management of change. Change is not being triggered
is a series of posters that are displayed in residence in simply for its own sake but because user expectations
the fi rst weeks of a new term – in “neutral” places such and behaviours are indicating that change is needed.
as the back of bathroom stalls – where they can be con- An anecdotal illustration of this complex leader-
sidered at will and without fear of stigma. The ultimate ship exercise would be the work the team carried out
outcome of this refl ective work has been a student-led with regards to registration for fi nal exams. In preced-
project focusing on a name change for the offi ce, which ing semesters, students were required to register for
was completed in late 2013 (See Appendix C). fi nals; there were early deadlines and forms and visits
to the offi ce were required. This begged the question,
The Development of Faculty Resources Might it be possible to turn the existing procedure on
A keystone repercussion of implementing the its head so that any student known to the offi ce might
social model of disability in postsecondary education automatically – and without any procedural require-
is the realization that interventions cannot continue to ment - have a place reserved to sit fi nal exams just as
be directed at students if it is the teaching environment is the case for these students` peers in the mainstream
that creates barriers. The natural conclusion is that a setting? Student feedback and the record of complaints
large proportion of the resources and efforts of a unit indicated this as a high priority for action. Staff fears
must therefore be redirected towards the environment and apprehensions ran high, but were heard and ad-
itself. This redirection began early on in the UD dressed through the logic of the UD audit.
implementation effort. Staff members’ job descriptions The new process was instituted in the Fall 2012
are progressively being redefi ned. In an initial transi- semester. The volume of fi nal exams sat jumped
tion effort, 50% of advisor hours are being freed for during one semester from 1096 to 1632. The level
the promotion of UD on campus. This has led to the of “no shows” remained almost identical. A large
creation of hands-on implementation tools for course volume of students were in all evidence previously
instructors, which include tailor-made workshops, not submitting to the procedures in place and therefore
a bank of 2 minute videos, and tips on sustainable did not have access to accommodations available to
classroom practices focusing on eroding barriers. The them. In the end staff devised an alternative, more
last outcome of this strategic rethinking has been the global technological method to obtain directly from
development of a consultancy service for faculties or the university the student data they required. The
course instructors wishing to receive support when re- ethnographic concern led to creative problem solving.
designing course content or evaluation methods. Staff members report that their administrative burden
has been signifi cantly reduced as a result and that they
Management of Change are feeling empowered by the process.
Removing barriers within a DS unit goes hand in
hand with managing change effectively. It quickly be- Scope of Findings
comes apparent that many of these procedural barriers There are some limitations in the data collection.
have simply developed over time. Intention or planning The fact that the audit relied primarily on qualitative
has rarely had anything to do with their creation and data and involved merely one DS provider limits the
staff members develop habits that are diffi cult to break transferability of outcomes. While the framework of the
without triggering fear and a feeling of inadequacy. No analysis remains action research, its scientifi c relevance
one likes the “new” even if the “old” does not necessarily remains of narrow scope. It was, however, an important
make sense or bring professional satisfaction. fi rst exploration in a fast moving environment which,
An added facet of the challenge of change is the unfortunately, attracts little independent scientifi c re-
“centrism” that professionals naturally develop in posi- search. One way this shortcoming might be addressed in
tions of power and authority (Wilson, 2000). Through the future is the fact that this DS unit carries out annual
complex mechanisms of “counter-transference” one quantitative surveying of its users. It is hoped that such
rapidly convinces oneself that what we are doing as surveying will be able to identify objective and quantifi -
professionals is what students are requesting (Hinshel- able transformation in user perspectives and, thus, more
wood, 2009). Sound ethnographic exploration of user robust evidence of positive outcomes.
expectations must therefore occur in parallel with the
Beck, Diaz del Castillo, Fovet, Mole, & Noga; Applying Universal Design 215
Implications professionals in this transformation have impact on
others. The process of change itself can bring to the
As stated in the introduction, the intention of the surface power dynamics. Furthermore, UD – as any
researchers was explicitly to move away from anec- sustainable change – can increase an individual`s
dotal observations and to focus from the start on wider workload while the review is carried out and before
implications of the recorded observations. The unit the sustainable change leads to the desired impact.
is conscious of its unique position as one of the few Resource issues are bound to arise, as they did here.
DS providers having undertaken such an exercise on The lesson to remember is that such a change process
a global documented scale, and as one of the fi rst to must be planned, proactively monitored, strategically
publish fi ndings. While the relevance of this work in followed and managed with agility. Resistance factors
progress’s results to the fi eld is still limited, there are are inherently abundant (Smollan, 2011) and require a
nonetheless certain key elements of the emerging fi nd- degree of forward planning.
ings that could be of use to other professionals. Many Similarly, the audit can be a very threatening pro-
of the outcomes highlighted below are not unique and cess for some the participants, as it requires all profes-
draw some validity from the fact that they also appear sionals in the team to critically re-assess their roles.
in the literature on program evaluation, including The implementation of the social model of disability
the small body of literature on program evaluations is likely, through the next decade, to radically change
(Dukes, 2011; Parker, Shaw & McGuire, 2003). our job descriptions. The UD audit is perhaps the fi rst
The fi rst important realization is that a UD audit is glimpse DS professionals have of the changing face of
a complex and multi-faceted process that few units at- the millennium campus. As such the audit process can
tempt successfully as a team. Our tasks within DS units be daunting. An inclusive campus is one that requires
are varied to the point of having little in common when fewer and fewer retrofi tting resources. Implementing
it comes to specifi c tasks and routines. In this sense UD is effectively working ourselves out of a job or at
our personal responses to UD implementation may least the ones we now have. This can be extremely
vary greatly depending on our level of comfort or the unsettling for some colleagues, even if the desired out-
increased burdens this may place upon us. The notion come still is some way off. Clearly DS professionals
of a UD audit may be readily appealing to management will be called upon in the future to take on roles that are
and access advisers. Conversely, the danger might only partially imagined at this stage and might include
be that such a process may alienate some profession- faculty support, campus-wide UD promotion and global
als within our teams because motivation towards the consultancy on inclusion. In the early stages of change,
changes envisioned has not been nurtured or because fear is tangible – as was the case here – and requires
new challenges are created by this reframing of daily sensitivity and the creation of a “safe” environment in
tasks. It has proved extremely important - and even key which participants can voice their concerns.
to the success recorded - to implement this process as The implications for student stakeholders are
a team and to adopt a global, systemic approach to the multiple. Extensive qualitative feedback was collected
management of change. The repercussions of decisions through the study: the impact of the changes was
made by some on the work of others in DS units are registered through large scale surveying of the unit`s
numerous. Seeing the UD audit as a top-down process user base carried out in March 2013. We received
would be condemning its success or at the very least completed surveys from 300 students, a response rate
severely restricting its width. The UD audit is therefore of 25%. More than 80% of the survey respondents
a process that must be planned by all, must take into were satisfi ed or very satisfi ed with the impact that
account the various specifi c professional facets of each the implementation of UDL principles was having on
individual unit, and must be embraced by all (Goodin, their user experience (see Appendix A). The survey-
Parker, Shaw, & McGuire, 2004). ing also allowed space for semi-directive comments.
Secondly, it is quickly apparent that professional These data show an understanding and appreciation
perspectives are often contradictory through this of the solutions crafted during this refl ective exercise
process. It would be naive to assume that the process by the DS team. Further in-depth qualitative data was
of a UD audit can be completed without tension and collected through four meetings within the span of one
transitional friction. As stated, the decisions of some year with the unit`s Student Advisory Board, which
216 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
played an active part in examining and supporting the References
changes proposed. Students have appreciated the mul-
tiple ways that they can contact an adviser, the greater The Association on Higher Education And Disability.
independence that they have from our offi ce because (2012). Supporting Accommodation Requests:
they can manage their affairs on line, and the removal Guidance on Documentation Practices. Retrieved
of deadlines that previously caused grave diffi cul- from www.ahead.org/resources/documentation_
guidance (Accessed August 13, 2013)
ties for those who failed to meet them. The outreach
Barnes, C., Oliver, M., & Barton, L. (2002): Disability,
campaign has had a noticeable impact on the numbers
the academy and the inclusive society. In C.
of students contacting the offi ce to explore access to
Barnes, M. Oliver and L. Barton (eds.) Disability
learning. A two-fold increase from 657 to 1311 has
studies today, cambridge: Polity pp. 250-260.
occurred in the volume of service users over the dura-
Colorado State University (2013) Institutionalizing
tion of the UDL implementation work (Appendix D).
UDL: How to Implement UDL and Make It
The audit has constituted an important and symbolic
Sustainable! http://accessproject.colostate.edu/
step towards increased awareness of user expectations
presentations/udl/consortium/june_08/workshop.
and a more systematic ethnographic exploration of the
php (Accessed August 19, 2013)
student perspective. Dukes, L. (2011) The iEvaluate OSD guidelines
A growing number of postsecondary DS providers and exemplars: A disability services evaluation
are likely to encounter the need to conduct a UD audit tool. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
of their own procedures as the social model becomes Disability, 24(2), 71 – 99.
a more pervasive paradigm in DS practices. The Embry, P., Parker, D., McGuire, J., & Scott, S. (2005).
exercise has an ecological relevance that is immedi- Postsecondary disability service providers’
ately transferable, as it highlights a critical tension in perceptions about implementing universal
design for instruction. Journal of Postsecondary
units’ expressed mission statements and how student
Education and Disability, 18(1), 3-48.
users experience the implementation of that mission.
Goodin, S., Parker, D. R., Shaw, S. F., & McGuire, J.
Though internal in nature and designed specifi cally for
M. (2004). Program evaluation for postsecondary
the context of this unit, the audit therefore can offer
disability services: From theory to practice.
external relevance as a process. This outcome analysis
Waltham, MA: The Association on Higher
has value for the unit undergoing the transformation
Education and Disability (AHEAD).
but also for the fi eld of DS provision. Beyond this it is
Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting universal
likely to have a transformational impact on campuses
design for learning on the higher ed agenda.
as a whole, as has been the case here, by making them
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2),
more aware of the need for inclusion and student- 111-121.
centered quality assessment. Harrison, E. (2006). Working with faculty toward
universally designed instruction: The process of
dynamic course design. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, Special Issue: Universal
Design in Higher Education, 19(2), 152 – 162.
Hinshelwood, R.D. (2009). Do unconscious processes
affect educational institutions? Clinical Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 14, 509.
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The
faculty perspective on universal design for
learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 21(2), 60-72.
LaRocco, D. J., & Wilken, D. S. (2013). Universal design
for learning: University faculty stages of concerns
and levels of use; A faculty action - research project
.Current Issues in Education, 6(1), 1-13.
Beck, Diaz del Castillo, Fovet, Mole, & Noga; Applying Universal Design 217
Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Raeke Ferrell, D., Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., &
Swiss, L., & Dugan, C. (2010) Exploring barriers Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in
to college student use of disability services and postsecondary education: Refl ections on principles and
accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education
Education and Disability, 23(3), 156-172. and Disability, 19(2), p. 17.
McGuire, J., Scott, S., & Shaw, S. (2003). Universal Rose, D.H. & Gravel, J.W. (2010). Universal design
Design for Instruction: The paradigm, its principles, for learning. In E. Baker, P. Peterson, & B. McGaw
and products for enhancing instructional access. (Eds.). International encyclopedia of education,
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 3rd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
17(1), 10-20. Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005).
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). The universally designed classroom: Accessible
Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge,
principles, and products for enhancing instructional MA: Harvard Education Press.
access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Smollan, R. (2011). Engaging with resistance to
Disability, 17(1), 10-20. change. University of Auckland Business Review,
Mole, H., & Bennett, A. (2013). From concept to 13(1), 12-15.
hands-on solutions: Creating passion about Spaargaren, G. (2011) Theories of practices: Agency,
UD amongst exam coordinators. Conference technology, and culture; exploring the relevance of
presentation, CACUSS Conference 2013, McGill, practice theories for the governance of sustainable
Montreal, June 2013. consumption practices in the new world-order.
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (2005). After Global Environmental Change, 21 (3), 813–822.
high school: a fi rst look at postschool experiences Staeger-Wilson, K., & Sampson, D. (2012) Infusing
of youth with disabilities. (WWW) http://www. JUST design in campus recreation. Journal of
nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_ Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3),
complete.pdf (Accessed February 14, 2014). 247-252.
Ofi esh, N. S., & McAfee, J. A. (Eds.). (2006). Universal Swain, J., French, S., Barnes, C., & Thomas, C. (Eds.)
design in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary (2004). Disabling barriers enabling environments.
Education and Disability, 19(2). 2d ed. London: SAGE.
Ofi esh, N., Rojas, C., & Ward, R. (2006). Universal Wilson, A. L. (2000). The politics of place: Producing
design and the assessment of student learning power and identity in continuing education.
in higher education: Promoting thoughtful In R.M. Cervero, A. L Wilson (Eds.), Power in
assessment. Journal of Postsecondary Education practice: Adult education and the struggle for
and Disability, 9, 173- 181. knowledge and power in society. San Francisco:
Parker, D., Shaw, S., & McGuire, J. (2003) Program Jossey-Bass.
evaluation for postsecondary disability services. Wright, R., & Marquez, C. (2006) From critical theory
Journal of Developmental Education, 27(1), 2-10. to action research or why this feels empowering.
Parker, D. R., White, C. E., Collins, L., Banerjee, M., & (WWW) http://www.wisdomineducation.org/journal/
McGuire, J. (2009). Learning technologies management springsummer (Accessed August 28 2012).
system (LiTMS): A multidimensional service delivery
model for college students with learning disabilities
and ADHD. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 22(2), 130-136.
Reason, P. (2003). Pragmatist philosophy and action
research: Readings and conversation with Richard
Rorty. Action Research, 1(1), 103-123.
Richie, M. A. (2013). Sustainability education,
experiential learning, and social justice: Designing
community based courses in the global south.
Journal of Sustainability Education, 5.
218
About the Authors
Tanja Beck received her Master’s degree in Education Heather Mole received her B.Sc. degree in Deaf
from the University of Cologne in Germany. Her Studies from Bristol University and her M.A. degree
experience includes working as an Access Adviser in Disability Studies from Leeds University. Her
and Faculty Liaison at the Offi ce for Students with experience includes working as a Sign Language
Disabilities at McGill University. Her research interests Interpreter in the UK and an Access Advisor at
include the overlap between UDL and social justice, McGill University, Canada. She is currently working
disability and career advising in Higher Education as as a Disability and Educational Adviser at the Open
well as the reframing of disability service provision University in the UK. She can be reached by email at:
through a social model lens. She can be reached by [email protected].
email at: [email protected].
Brodie Noga received his B.A. degree in anthropology
Patricia Diaz del Castillo received her B.A. degree from Simon Fraser University and M.A. from McGill
in psychology from the University of La Sabana in University. His experience includes working as an
Colombia and a Certifi cate in Inclusive Education from Access Technologist for McGill’s Offi ce for Students
McGill University. Her experience has included, over ten with Disabilities. He is currently studying law at
years, working as a Learning Specialist with adolescents McGill University. His research interests includes
and young adults. She is currently the Learning embodiment, environmental illness and the perception
Resources Advisor for the Offi ce for Students with of the environment. He can be reached by email at:
Disabilities at McGill University. She can be reached [email protected].
by email at: [email protected].
Frederic Fovet holds a Masters in Social, Emotional and
Behavioural Diffi culties (SEBD) from the University
of Birmingham, UK. His experience includes working
as a teacher in special education; he has also been
principal of a residential school for students with SEBD
for over a decade. Since 2011 he has been heading
the Offi ce for Students with Disabilities at McGill,
where he has overseen the launch of a large scale
UDL implementation drive. His research interests
includes inclusion, UDL, SEBD, AD/HD, adolescence
resilience, outdoor education and the use of virtual
spaces in special education. He can be reached by
email at: [email protected].