D Jerkan Final Senior Project Paper

Running Head: ACCESSIBILITY AND ABLEISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Abelism in Higher Education: The Impacts of Accessibility
on Students with Disabilities
Danijela Jerkan
Antioch College
Author Note
I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Deanne Bell for guiding me throughout my
exploration of the research, providing me with the insight I needed to keep moving
forward, and for believing in me when I did not believe in myself. I would also like to
thank Ryann Patrus for cheering me on during this project and for helping me to find
some amazing resources that have benefitted the depth of my research. I would like to
thank Dr. Dean Snyder for helping me to challenge and push myself throughout my
exploration of the research and to do my best. Last but not least, I would like to thank my
friends and family that have encouraged me throughout this project to keep going - I am
extremely fortunate to have such a supportive system of individuals.

Running Head: ACCESSIBILITY AND ABLEISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1
Abstract
Systemic ableism has been a long-standing form of oppression that individuals
with disabilities face. The multitude of misconceptions our society holds surrounding
disability and disability identity perpetuate ableism, creating restrictive boundaries
against individuals with disabilities, serving as a form of discrimination and inequality.
Ableism is not only reinforced through individual attitudes or behaviors, but also through
larger institutions such as academia. The purpose of this literature review is to analyze
how ableism is reinforced through limited accessibility within higher education,
examining the ways in which the experiences of students with disabilities are negatively
impacted within the contexts of social and physical inaccessibility. This holds particular
importance concerning the inequitable experiences and opportunities of certain student
demographics. The research cited has concluded five ways in which ableism, within the
context of accessibility, has negatively impacted college students with disabilities in
regards to: ability ideology, physical/object privilege, retrofitting and universal design,
social privilege, and the underdevelopment of allyship.
Keywords: ableism, higher education, disability, students, oppression, accessibility

Introduction
Currently, one fifth of the United States’ population is living with a type of a
disability (Kattari, 2015). The word “disability” has varying meanings based within
different social contexts. In its most basic medical model definition, disability can be
described as a physical and/or mental condition that can limit certain functionalities
including mobility, communicative capacities, and even learning aptitudes (Raue, Lewis,
& Coopersmith, 2011). This definition typifies our current societal understanding of
disability, which pathologizes persons with disabilities by viewing disability as an
individual defect requiring a type of fixing or cure (Solis, 2006). For the majority of our
history the medical model has been applied for understanding disability. This has been
detrimental for individuals with disability identity particularly because the medical
model, although popularly referenced, ultimately fails to critically address disability
identity as social construct deriving from social injustice, inequity, and oppression
(Siebers, 2008). This has promoted the existing power dynamic between ability and
disability or rather Western society’s value of ability over disability.
Within Western society abled-bodied persons possess a type of social dominance.
Social dominance relates to the construction of social group hierarchies, which are
defined by specific characteristics of those within a certain social group (Kattari, 2015).
Considering this particular context, the social dominance theory serves to exclude
persons with disabilities because of having bodies and minds that do not conform to
mainstream standards of functionality. The social dominance of able-bodiedness impedes
disability identity significantly, marketing disability as a negative form of living by
marginalizing this demographic (Solis, 2006).

This superiority afforded to ability over disability is reinforced through ableism:
discrimination against an individual “… based on perceived ability” (Ferri & Connor,
2005).
Ableism informs the ways in which physical and social spaces are structured. For
example, the physical structure of a building, the behavior of an individual, and even the
atmosphere of a social space (ex: classroom or community) can be influenced by ableism.
Ableism is so pervasive within society that people who commonly exercise
ableistic tendencies are often unaware of the impacts of those actions (Solis, 2006).
Ableism, as mentioned above, can be demonstrated on both individual and institutional
levels. While the existence of ableism is relevant within many areas of life, I am
particularly interested in how it manifests within and affects the experiences of students
with disabilities in higher educational environments. Based on previous research, ableism
within higher education is largely reinforced through accessibility, or lack thereof, to
social and physical spaces. My research question is: How does accessibility, or the lack
thereof, negatively affect the experiences of undergraduate students with disabilities in
social and physical university settings?
Within the context of this paper, social and physical accessibility are defined as
settings that govern inclusivity and/or exclusivity. Inclusivity involves incorporating
individuals whereas exclusivity implicates eliminating individuals; both of these actions
happen for a number of reasons that involve the politics of identity, economic, and the
social sphere. Identifying ableism is only half of the challenge for this project; the other
half is understanding how to deconstruct and combat oppressive systems, such as ableism
in order to avoid the perpetuation of them. This literature review not only aims to offer a

critical examination of the existing literature concerned with the theme of accessibility,
but also strives to identify gaps within the research that may contribute to our lack of
understanding around this topic. In doing so, I’m interested in informing policies and
structures that relate to accessibility in higher education. Through this literature review,
five themes have emerged that relate to how inaccessibility can negatively affect the
experiences of undergraduate students with disabilities in social and physical university
settings. These five themes are: ability ideology, physical/object privilege, retrofitting
and universal design, social privilege, and allyship.
Relevant Experience
Throughout my undergraduate experience at Antioch College, I have completed
four different internships at nonprofit organizations that strive to provide services to
individuals with a varying degree of disabilities including: physical, emotional,
developmental, and/or psychiatric disabilities. These internships have provided me with
many significant opportunities; one of the most influential was being able to work very
closely and build relationships with clients.
My most recent internship position took place at the Crotched Mountain
Rehabilitation Center. Crotched Mountain is an organization that strives to support
individuals with either intellectual and/or physical disabilities along with their families.
My particular role in the organization was helping to support the students who attended
the school at Crotched Mountain as a para-educator. Each classroom within the school
was specialized in order to meet the needs of the students. I was placed in a classroom
that worked specifically with students who had experienced severe trauma within their
lives, so the classroom and the staff that I had worked with were particularly trained to

help create a comfortable classroom environment for students who were often triggered
by a number of different things. Many of the students in this classroom had emotional
behavioral disorders, which affected their functioning in a number of ways, including
their ability learn and focus. The traumatic experiences of the students I worked most
closely with greatly impacted their emotional behavior disorders, causing them great
distress and difficulty in going about their days in what would be considered a
“productive” way.
Developing relationships with these students impacted me immeasurably. I gained
an immense amount of respect for the work that so many of my co-workers did everyday
to ensure that the clients are safe and happy. Some children at the school have little to no
family, yet I have been able to witness how complete strangers (the staff and clients)
connect and bond in ways that almost feel like a familial connection. Many of the kids
that I had worked with often extended appreciation to other staff members by disclosing
that their experience at the Crotched Mountain school was the first time they had felt like
they had stability and continuity in their lives.
These short, yet impactful experiences in working hands-on with multiple clients
has provided me with a strong yearning to understand their experiences and more so how
able-bodied individuals, like myself, impact those experiences. This yearning was
comprised of deeply engaged self-reflection of my identity as an able-bodied individual
working with individuals with disabilities. Coming to terms with my own biases and
personal motivations for taking these positions provoked a bout of moral and ethical
concerns over the work I did in those organizations. I am very privileged in many ways;
ways that most of the clients I had worked with were not. My work with these individuals

was the first time I had recognized having ableistic tendencies toward persons with
disabilities, which was both concerning and motivating. This is this purpose behind my
research topic; to learn about how the inherent ableism within our world’s standards
affects the lives of individuals with disabilities.
Terms
This section is dedicated to defining specific terms and the contexts from which
they are being used:
1. Able-bodied: A socially constructed identity category regarding a person who
does not have any mental, physical, and/or intellectual disabilities (Siebers, 2008).
2. Ableism: A system of oppression that works in advantage of able-bodied
individuals based on their lacking of a disability; a power system that perpetuates
discrimination and inequity towards persons with disabilities (Garland‐ Thomson,
2005).
3. Accessibility: Within the context of higher education, accessibility is defined as a
person's capability and/or opportunity to enter into either higher education or
physical and/or social spaces within higher education. Accessibility is heavily
contingent upon not only a person’s ability status but also their cultural,
educational, and economic backgrounds (Grant & Zwier, 2011).
4. Ally: “A socially constructed category for a person with a particular form of
privilege who works to advocate for social justice and end oppression” (Miller,
2015, p. 8)
5. Disability Identity: a socially constructed identity category regarding a person (or
group of people) that experience any type of disability (Siebers, 2008).

6. Disability studies: “A multidisciplinary body of academic work that the centers
the lives, experiences, and perspectives of people with disabilities. Generally
views disability as a socially constructed category. Typically rejects the
medical/pathological model of disability in favor of social, minority group, or
radical models of disability” (Miller, 2015, p. 9)
7. Feminist Disability Studies: a theoretical approach to understanding disability
identity, often by examining the multiple identities of a person (intersectionality).
This effort to consider intersectionality allows for critical examination of how
multiple marginalized identities impacts social disadvantage (Liasidou, 2014).
8. Student with Disabilities (SWD): a higher educational student with a disability.
This can include mental, physical, social and/or intellectual disabilities (Banfield-
Hardaway, 2010).
Literature Review
Ability Ideology
Siebers (2008) asserts that our society promotes the perfection of the body.
Perfection of the body takes form not only in its physical structuring and appearance but
also in its functionality and its vitality. According to Siebers (2008), there are two main
contradictory areas of thought around the body. The first area relates to the understanding
of the body within itself. In this sense, the body is a type vehicle used to represent who
we are throughout our lives. Our vehicles are transformed by the way that we are
perceived by others. Most often, our perceptions are shaped by ideologies that we
endorse and/or are brought up to believe in. For example, religious institutions fantasize
the human body as finding eternal life; modern science promotes the idea that the human

body will eventually be genetically encoded to perfection (e.g. eugenics). Popular culture
promotes a valued aesthetic body type, one where limbs and minds function to the utmost
ability and look beautiful while doing so (Erickson, 2016). These institutions thrive on
the idea that we will live longer, healthier lives in bodies that can endure and work in
every productive way possible. In the other realm of thought, Siebers (2008) describes
the medical model’s focus on life longevity; bodies are universally finite. In this area of
thought there is a focus on how we easily lose control of our vehicles (bodies) due to a
number of things. The medical model views a person’s lifespan as being able to become
shortened whether it be by disability, disease, or even disaster (Erickson, 2016). The
medical model brings our attention to how these changes can interfere with and restrict
our control over our own lives. Siebers (2008) explains that within the context of
disability, a non-disabled person can become disabled by these changes. And just like
that, the body (of a person with a disability) can easily lose its significance because they
are perceived as lacking control over their lives and falling victim to the interference of
disability. The medicalized area of thought around the body is primarily interested in the
use of modern medicine for curing, treating, and even avoiding disability in human
development (Garland-Thomas, 2005).
However, these contradicting ideas around the body do not seem to challenge one
another, but rather compliment one another according to Siebers (2008). We find
meaning in knowing that universally our bodies will come to an inevitable end, yet we
also find meaning in making our bodies perfect both in physical appearance and
functional status (e.g. bodies that can work, think, and move in conventional ways).
These contradictory ideas feed into ability ideology: the proclivity for able-bodiedness

(Siebers, 2008). Able-bodiedness, as an identity category, represents desirability in our
society that places persons with disabilities in an the alternative category of
“undesirability” (Erickson, 2016). Likewise, Solis (2006) believes that ability ideology
constructs our misunderstanding of and aversion to disability, which is characterized as
ableism. Disability is antithetical to ability ideology; it complicates society’s
understanding of embodiment by emphasizing the value of body types that do not
conform to mainstream standards of functionality and appearance. Complicating ability
ideology is challenging because it is so widely subscribed to, which is one of the leading
factors as to why ableism continues to be an accepted form of discrimination (Lewis,
2011).
According to Brandes and Crowson (2008), ableism is largely sustained because
disability challenges the conventional ideas of ability ideology; disability is thought of as
a medical matter whereas ability is regarded as natural talents or gifts, health,
productivity, and even beauty. Siebers (2008) asserts that these characteristics of ability
act as the standards for how we value/devalue various forms of human life. Solis (2006)
echoes this by focusing on the social dominance of ability over disability: the deeply
ingrained ideology of ability combined with societal reinforcers (ableism being
communicated through social and physical environments) validate the hostility held
against individuals who have mental, physical, and intellectual disabilities.
To examine ability ideology in real life, we will focus our attention on higher
educational institutions. Liasidou (2014) argues that higher education continues to be
largely inaccessible for students with disabilities (SWDs), primarily due to issues
concerning the expectations and standards of productivity within the college setting.

10
Banfield-Hardaway (2010) would support this statement, emphasizing that the challenges
of both accessing higher education and surviving as a college student are impeded by the
immeasurable academic standards and financial stress that accompany the college
experience. Siebers (2008) argues that these standards are normative and are driven by
the ideology of ability. This, according to Siebers, is primarily due to the way in which
institutions subscribe to the ideology of ability; the expectations of those institutions are
based within a deeply-inequitable system of misconceptions around productivity and
functionality. According to King (2009), SWDs continue to be one of the most under-
represented groups in higher education. Statistics indicate that a mere 11% of college
students within the United States have reported a medically diagnosed and documented
disability. This simple statistic demands our attention to understand why SWDs continue
to be underrepresented in higher educational settings. One of the largest barriers to
succeeding in higher education for SWDs derive from types of accommodations and
services, or lack thereof, that are provided to this demographic.
King (2009) claims that it is crucial for universities to establish holistic disability
services for students with disabilities (SWDs) for they alone can impact a large
proportion of students’ learning experiences. Competent disability services are, at times,
essential in helping students receive accommodations for their specific learning needs.
Common types of accommodations for students with disabilities include: curricula
modifications, due date flexibility, extensions for exams or large assignments, alternative
testing procedures and incorporation of diverse learning modalities (ex: assistive
technologies) (Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012). Solis (2006) would argue that the need for
accommodations on behalf of SWDs speaks to the fundamental inequalities of higher

11
educational curricula design; needing to adapt curricula that was designed originally in
mind for a learner without disabilities (as driven by ability ideology). Grant and Zwier
(2005) describe traditional institution-student interactions for the receiving of disability
accommodations: in order for the majority of SWDs to obtain accommodations they are
required to disclose their disability while also providing documentation of their diagnosis.
This requirement on behalf of the institution can be viewed as a form of ableism, in that
having/being able to produce biomedical proof of disability is the only effective way for
SWDs to access accommodations (Liasidou, 2014). Additionally, there is also a
significant push for students to not only initiate these services and accommodations, but
also be held responsible for their upkeep. With most institutions holding SWDs
responsible for both acquiring and maintaining certain accommodations for learning,
ableism finds itself inside institutional policy. This particular set of policies, as articulated
by the research, has the capacity to negatively affect the experiences of those students
seeking services.
Taylor (2015) found that students with disabilities (SWDs) who were held
responsible for acquiring and maintaining support service accommodations also
commonly questioned their self-advocacy efforts. If their form of self-advocacy did not
comply with the expectations or regulations on behalf of the disability services offered,
students may find themselves as lacking access to the necessary accommodations that can
improve their learning experiences. Erikson (2016), a disabled activist, argues that the
lack of accessibility around receiving accommodations is a, “... part of the institutional
and performative cultures of undesirability” (p. 13). Similarly, Hutcheon and Wolbring’s
(2012) research found that the ableistic power dynamics between students and institutions

12
were detrimental for students who needed access to these essential services. This is
echoed by a study completed by Morina, Cortes-Vega, and Molina (2015), which was
conducted on SWDs at a Spanish university that asked about their perceptions on the
types accommodations provided by their institution. More specifically, student
participants were asked if/how faculty were educated about accommodations and handled
accommodating SWDs. The response of one student in this study highlighted how
difficult it was not only in receiving accommodations but also in feeling like their
university had prioritized the needs of the demographic of SWDs. This student claimed:
“I don't know, I think the faculty is a little afraid. I've even been told,
‘Well, I've never had a student with a disability and I don't know what to
do for you.’ And I say, okay, don't worry about it, I don't bite and I won't
bother you.’ They should be made aware, given some kind of course on
how to deal with people with disabilities. It's not very complicated, but it
is true that we need a little more attention.” (p. 96)
In this context, the failure to prioritize students with disabilities has the capacity to affect
a student’s psychological perception of self-worth (Morina, Cortes-Vega, and Molina,
2015). Institutions that fail to educate their staff and faculty on how to appropriately
accommodate their own students provide limited opportunities for students to obtain the
help they need. Lacking accessibility to accommodations that can provide equitable
learning experiences actively promotes the notion that the visibility of SWDs is
undesirable within higher education.
According to Knoll (2009), there are varying levels of inherent ableism that lie
within different types of accommodations. An example of this can be seen when

13
instructors decide to modify the course objectives for students with disabilities (SWDs)
by not making them complete certain assignments. Knoll (2009) argues that the
instructors may think that they are making things easier for SWDs, but in actuality this
type of action reinforces the inherent subscription to ability ideology of higher
educational settings. Not only does this action directly undermine a student’s ability as a
learner, but it also puts accommodations in the light of cheating or being useless because
the student is not being challenged in the same ways that other classmates were;
essentially, SWDs are not seen as being capable of meeting the course requirements
(Hutcheon and Wolbring, 2012). This form of ableism, as motivated by the ability
ideology of higher education, is detrimental for SWDs that require accommodations.
According to Banfield-Hardaway (2010), accommodations and the multiple ways that
they become modified by individual personnel represent a double-edged sword of
disability visibility in higher education: to meet the needs of students who are trying to
meet the needs of an institution, those of which actively reinforce ableism and favor the
ideology of ability.
Physical/Object Privilege
It wasn’t until after the 1990’s that SWDs started to gain a presence on college
campuses. This was largely due to the legal measures that were being taken during this
time to support their accessibility rights particularly within the realm of physical
accessibility (Liasidou, 2014). However, legal measures that aimed to ensure physical
accessibility and support for individuals with disabilities had been introduced far before
this time. The implication of the laws that were created were to ensure that physical
environments were built in such a way that they were accessible to individuals with

14
disabilities, which required existing institutional buildings to alter, retrofit, or even build
new designs to meet accessibility standards during this time.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was put in place to prevent the exclusion of SWDs
in federally funded programs and educational services. However, due to a lack of funding
this act was largely ignored (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). An important aspect of
the Rehabilitation Act was in its Section 504. Section 504 specifically spoke to
prohibiting discrimination against disability identity. Thereafter, the American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990. ADA, specifically Title II within ADA,
prohibits any kind of discrimination against individuals on the basis of disability. This
meant to “…ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State
and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and
transportation” (Leuchovius, n.d.). Eventually, Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) was created in revision to the former title of Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (1975). IDEA was intended to create better funding opportunities for
SWDs, in that it would help public institutions carry out their Constitutional obligations
to provide schooling and services to SWDs (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). Although
we have integrated many laws into the legal system to provide physical accessibility for
individuals with disabilities, barriers to access remain.
According to Knoll (2003), accessibility is manufactured for privilege. Knoll
describes physical/object privilege as being able to operate within a physical structure
built in mind for able-bodied individuals with ease and without hesitation or struggle. Let
us focus our attention to the construction of a set of stairs. Gossett et al. (2009) adds that
in order to use this set of stairs, a person should be able to walk; this is a representation of

15
ableism in an intentionally designed construct. Manufacturing privilege through physical
accessibility largely disadvantages individuals who mobilize themselves contrastively
(Knoll, 2003). According to Gossett et al. (2009), physical restrictions not only relate to
barriers of participation physically but socially as well.
Because physical and social spaces often coexist with one another on college
campuses, the amount of accessibility barriers students with disabilities (SWDs) can face
becomes complicated. Inclusivity has been integrated into the conversation regarding
solutions for promoting access to marginalized groups, but measuring inclusivity on
college campuses has been challenging. Yoh et al. (2008) conducted a study that
measured the satisfaction that SWDs held regarding how accessible their campus
recreation facilities seemed; a space that combined social and physical space restrictions.
An example of this would be the classroom. If a student is unable to physically access the
classroom, this may impose the idea that they cannot engage in the same ways as the
other students can, which would act as a social restriction. As mentioned above, the study
was conducted on 122 SWDs from two midwestern universities in the United States. Yoh
and his fellow researchers administered surveys to the students, asking them to rate their
satisfaction with the campus recreation facilities and services. Based on the findings, the
satisfaction ratings of the campus recreational services were very low and that 68% of
students with physical disabilities reported using the facilities less than five times during
a given semester period. Along with that, approximately 37% of the students that
participated in the study reported never using the facilities whatsoever. This research
found that the lack of inclusivity provided by the facilities inaccessibility (lack of
adaptive equipment) stood as a significant barrier to SWDs. The fact that these facilities

16
lacked adaptive equipment (ex: wheelchair accessible machines for working out) provide
insight as to how physical/object privilege is allocated in that these environments were
structurally intended to be used by a specific body type. As mentioned above, the current
legal system upholds laws that were created to ensure accessibility, yet many higher
educational institutions fail to meet these standards not only in the means of physical
space but social space as well. A lack of physical accessibility for SWDs actively
promotes their exclusion from the opportunity to engage physically as well as socially
with other students (Yoh et al, 2008). An imperative question remains: How does lack of
physical accessibility impact SWDs?
Research conducted by Simonson et al. (2013) complements the study by Yoh et
al. (2008) by focusing on student’s perceptions of campus physical accessibility. The
study took place at Colorado State University, studying 1,370 students with a 12%
response rate of 165 SWDs that were registered with the college’s disability support
services. Simonson and his research team administered surveys to the students that asked
for their perceptions on the accessibility of the overall campus, the new building on
campus, and the old building on campus. Along with that, the surveys asked the students
to describe if their perceived accessibility, or lack thereof, of each physical entity had any
effect on the quality of education they received. Additionally, Simonson et al. (2013)
found that students with physical disabilities had significantly different perceptions than
students with intellectual disabilities. The size and conditions of the sidewalks around the
university, the size of the bathrooms (particularly in the older buildings), and the lack of
accessibility in the classrooms (ex: lack of space for individuals who use wheelchair or
wheelchair accessible tables) posed as significant problems for the students with physical

17
disabilities that participated in the study. Furthermore,many of the students with
disabilities (SWDs) that did not have physical disabilities, but rather learning disabilities,
did not hold the same perceptions around these obstacles as mentioned above. Both
Siebers (2008) and Knoll (2003) assert that these discrepancies in concerns over
accessibility provide insight as to how, even in the disability community, physical/object
privilege prevails. Many of the students that took part in the study documented the
quality of their education positively for the most part, while some students described that
some physical barriers to access negatively affected their learning experiences.
Research by Devine (2016) suggests that students with disabilities (SWDs) who
face physical (and by extension social) inaccessibility are more likely to experience a
lack of sense of belonging with their peers and broader university communities. Devine
studied the effects of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) on SWDs. LTPA can be
described as physical activity that takes place during non-academic hours, including
exercising or even partaking in intramural sports (Wilhite & Shank, 2009). The study was
conducted on 16 participants at Kent State University, which involved in-depth and open-
ended interviews. The qualitative study was focused on gaining the SWDs perceptions on
their experiences with accessing and engaging in LTPA, the factors that were facilitated
in LTPA experiences, as well as what barriers existed to engaging in LTPA on their
campus. The findings of the study were that SWDs who engaged in LTPA felt that the
main barriers to participation were found within the physical structuring of the facilities
where leisure-time physical activities took place. This impeded SWDs opportunity to
interact with other non-disabled students and to form connections that would help to
promote sense of belonging to peers and the broader university community. Participants

18
also emphasized that their disability identity made them feel as though they were
perceived as being unable to participate, emphasizing the ableistic stereotypes that are
often faced by SWDs. Overall, the most compelling finding of the study was that most
participants that faced barriers to physically engaging in spaces with their peers also felt
that their quality of life was quite low (Devine, 2016). This research and the voices that
were illuminated through it are paramount pieces of insight as to how ableism, as
communicated through physical (and by extension social) inaccessibility, affects college
SWDs deeply and meaningfully. According to Gossett et al (2009), physical
inaccessibility is quite common amongst higher education settings. The failure to provide
physical accessibility within the college setting not only negatively impacts the
experience of SWDs but also actively promotes their visibility and participation in
college life as being undesirable.
Universal Design and Retrofitting
A more popular method for advancing accessibility in both physical and social
spaces on college campuses involves retrofitting and implementing universal design (UD)
both within and outside of the classroom. According to Gossett et al. (2009), universal
design (UD) refers to a movement in designing products, devices, services and
environments that accommodate the largest possible variation of ability types.
Retrofitting refers to the addition of a component to something that was not originally a
part of its construction (ex: adding a ramp to a flight of stairs for individuals who utilize
wheelchair mobility). Retrofitting is utilized in universal design, but is commonly applied
after a structure is designed. Universal design has been primarily applied to the
construction of physical buildings, but more recently implemented in pedagogical design.

19
According to Story, Mueller and Mace (1998), UD came into popularity around
the 1960’s. The history leading up to the implementation of UD started in the barrier-free
movement during the 1950’s, which was created by a large group disabled veterans and
disability advocates that pushed pushed for changes in design practices that would allow
access to education and employment for persons with disabilities (Story, Mueller and
Mace, 1998). In 1968, The Architectural Barriers Act was enacted, which changed the
way in which physical buildings could be designed in order to maximize accessibility
(Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). Again, even though legal measures were being taken
to break physical barriers for persons with disabilities, many barriers remained in the
public and private domains of everyday life. Mentioned above the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which was one of the largest legislative pieces that
created awareness raising to the public about inaccessibility and discrimination against
individuals with disabilities (Leuchovius, n.d.).
Finally in 1991, The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
issued “Accessibility Guidelines” for accessible (what was soon to be Universal) design.
According to Story, Mueller and Mace (1998), architects began to implement the
standards of accessible design but shortly realized that the retrofitted accessibility
features were much more expensive and unattractive. Then a huge realization occurred
for the architects and urban planners of this time: the environmental changes that were
required through the “Accessibility Guidelines” were not only accommodating to people
with disabilities but that they were beneficial to everyone (Lewis, 2011).
Story, Mueller, and Mace (1998) assert that the application of Universal Design
(UD) on college campuses has been of more recent interest as student demographics on

20
college campuses continue to change. In order to decrease inaccessibility and the stigma
associated with lacking physical access, UD has been applied in many different ways.
Story, Mueller, and Mace (1998) researched what types of assistive products were
universally designed within the past two decades, which included: mobilized wheelchair
scooters, extended bathtubs and showers with railings, railings on public walkways, as
well as varied types of assistive technologies for customizing computers, tablets, and
other technological devices. As for the application of UD on physical structuring of
buildings research by Gossett et al. (2009) highlighted the opening of doorways and
bathrooms for wheelchair accessibility, the implementation of ramps adjacent to stairs,
and power-height adjustable work surfaces for individuals who use wheelchairs.
According to Gossett et al. (2009), higher educational institutions have been making
strides to meet UD standards, but there remains issues with accessibility in older
buildings on certain campuses. Because they were built far before accessibility standards
were required, they are generally protected by the grandfather clause, which excludes
certain facilities from needing to comply with certain accessibility requirements of Title
II of the ADA (“The ADA and City Governments”, n.d.). Even with legislation that
requires institutions to meet accessibility standards, SWDs continue to face restricts and
inaccessibility to certain physical buildings due to other legislative standards that allow
for facility non-compliance.
According to the article “Disability of College Campuses: An Overview” (2013),
institutions have been progressively introducing Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
courses, which are designed to meet the learning needs of students, disabled and non-
disabled alike. As mentioned above, this type of pedagogy stems from architectural

21
objectives to meet all accessibility needs. Concerns have been raised regarding the
implementation of UDL courses, specifically: how compatible UDL will be with certain
curricula and what teaching methods will be used to maximize learning experiences for
diversely abled students. Research shows that most typical postsecondary education
curricula fail to incorporate the varied array of preferred modalities of learning (Liasidou,
2014). The lack of UDL pedagogy implementation on behalf of higher educational
institutions demonstrates a type of ableism on a larger scale, promoting inaccessibility
within the classroom. Similarly, Cory (2011) would argue that by incorporating an
inclusive pedagogy such as UDL to shape institutional curricula, ability diverse students
across all disciplines can have an equitable opportunity for accessing courses, while also
being able to benefit the many individual learning styles of students. This would also
avoid the need to differentiate or separate students of ability diversity on the premise that
the learning content and its presentation would be inaccessible and/or unfit for certain
learning styles.
As mentioned before, teaching methods that will be used as a part of UDL
pedagogy are also of concern because of the multiple sources in which individuals use in
order to obtain information (Liasidou, 2014). For example, a student who has a visual
impairment may be unable to see the board from a certain distance, which could be
helped by the implementation of an assistive technology (basic accessibility software on a
computer); this can allow for the student to see the board. Different students utilize
different methods for accessing information, and so teaching methods that are used in
UDL pedagogy help to widen course accessibility for ability diverse students. The
research conducted by Liasidou (2014) suggests that educators, when working with UDL

22
curricula, will have to be trained to utilize instructional differentiation in order to avoid
exercising normally ableistic tendencies of traditional teaching methods. Designing the
curricula in accessible formats would emphasize a professor’s dedication for teaching all
students, regardless of the ability type (Cory, 2011).
In relation to the impacts that Universal Design (UD) and retrofitting have on
students with disabilities (SWDs), Watson et al. (2013) conducted research at the
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (UW-Whitewater) that focused on how a new
Universally Designed residence hall affected resident university students with disabilities
(SWDs). The UW-Whitewater identified a need for more accessible campus housing
options for SWDs, so the Center for Students with Disabilities and the Department of
Residence life came together to propose a project plan. The plan was composed of
suggestions for how to accommodate SWDs needs through Universally Design
application (e.g. wider door frames for individuals who use wheelchairs). Multiple
students from the university who self-identified with having a mobility, learning, vision,
cognitive, and/or mental disability took part in a focus group that was used to provide
some feedback to the project design group on the proposed design concepts. Based on the
results of the focus group, a list of target design features was completed. Target design
features that were brought up during the focus group include: braille signage on multiple
appliances (e.g., microwaves), broadening hallways and other spaces for wheelchair-
mobilizers, available access to transportation pick-up/drop-off stations, fully accessible
work stations and high-level care bathrooms (e.g., showers are accessible for wheelchair
users), etc. The project design team took deep consideration into the target design
features and met the majority of those suggestions with the new Universally Designed

23
residence life hall. After the hall was opened to students, Watson et al. (2013) asked the
resident university students with disabilities for feedback on the newly designed living
spaces. What they found was that many students were blown away by the designs,
primarily because it was one of the first times they experienced UD (e.g., the structuring
of a building was accommodating to them). The Center for Students with Disabilities had
also checked in with students living in the new halls to ask about their experiences, but
these set of responses differed slightly. For example, students with visual impairments
suggested that more braille be implemented on community resources (e.g., washing
machine). The largest finding of this research was that majority of the student residents
with disabilities felt positively towards the implementation of UD in these residence
halls, as they communicated inclusivity of their student demographic (Watson et al.,
2013).
Although much of the research covered in this literature review has eluded to
Universal Design (UD) and retrofitting as being positive movements for accessibility,
many feminist theorists believe that these movements oversimplify modification and
more importantly intrinsic aspects of ableism. According to Knoll (2009), modifying
physical or social structures through UD or retrofitting is the active disregard for the
more individual intricacies of accommodation. Knoll argues that UD is essentially
regarded as a popular the one size fits all model, which is detrimental particularly
because it has been used to substitute accommodations. By substituting accommodations
with UD, there is a negating of the fact that there remains an individual diversity in
ability types, meaning that not all persons with disabilities can use and benefit from UD.
Furthermore, Garland-Thomas (2005) asserts that we should strive to make all things

24
accessible for all people but that we should critically analyze how, for whom, and in what
ways we are making things accessible as well as working with individuals to meet their
individual needs.
Social Privilege
In western society, higher educational institutions mirror many of of our larger
societal norms and values. As mentioned before, higher education institutions, like
society, uphold the characteristic of productivity as a positive value. Knoll (2009) asserts
that the ability ideology that exists within society and higher education actively promote,
“that in order to be liked, loved, and/or respected member of a community, one has to be
able to work, produce something, and not be dependent upon others”(p. 126). Knoll
suggests that this dictates how individuals assign social privilege. Social privilege can be
thought of as the way in which people are perceived by other people and how those
perceptions relate to a type of granted status in privilege. Furthermore, Ellman (2012)
asserts that for students on college campuses, social privilege relates to how they are
socially recognized and regarded by other students, staff, and faculty.
Representations of social privilege are driven by perceived physical appearance as
well as ability, economic, social, and even intellectual status (Kattari, 2015). According
to Ellman (2012), ableism negatively affects the cultural and social capital (or social
privilege) that students with disabilities (SWDs) are capable of attaining, primarily
because of their perceived disability identity. Because having a disability is socially
viewed as being biologically insufficient, there tends to be an association between
insufficiency and lack of productivity that negatively affects social perception of SWDs
(stemming from social and cultural capital). Liasidou (2014) asserts that this association

25
extends from the rigid understanding of disability that is held by Western society.
Likewise, Knoll (2009) and Solis (2006) assert that society pathologizes persons with
disabilities by viewing disability as the only defining aspect of an individual’s identity, as
well as being the unfixable component of identity. With this ableistic perception at hand,
the perceived cultural and social capital of SWDs affects their capacity to gain social
accessibility. Interestingly enough, the implementation of multicultural education has
been suggested as way to raise non-disabled students’ consciousnesses around identity
axes, which may help them to combat negative and or inaccurate perceptions of
marginalized identities (such as disability identity) and help to promote social
accessibility towards SWDs (Lalvani et al., 2015).
Multicultural Education
As mentioned above, social spaces on college campuses are large facilitators of
student connections (“Disability of College Campuses: An Overview”, 2013). Social
spaces (e.g., extracurricular activities rooms, cafeteria, library, and gym) are
opportunities for students to connect non-academically and to bond with others. Research
by Lalvani et al. (2015) found that many of these types of spaces that facilitated social
activities amongst the student body held less inclusion or involvement of students with
disabilities (SWDs). Based on the research of this article, SWDs are mostly excluded
from these social spaces because of the lack of institutionally initiated diversity or
multicultural education. According to Grant & Zwier (2011), studies show that the
implementation of multicultural education courses on college campuses (for both
educators and students) have significantly boosted consciousness around identity axes,

26
which help to combat negative and or inaccurate perceptions of marginalized identities,
such as disability identity.
Similarly, Liasidou (2014) also supports that providing diversity/multicultural
education can meaningfully help learners to critically engage with and educate
themselves about diverse identities. Additionally, students learn how to deconstruct
harmful, dominant cultural representations of various identities (“Hidden Curriculum”,
2014). Grant and Zwier’s (2011) research emphasizes the consequences of dismissing
multicultural education implementation as a part of curricula, which prevents the
opportunity for students to better inform themselves about various types of social,
political, and economic inequity that are commonly reinforced through systemic
oppression. Likewise, Lalvani et al. (2015) assert that the application of multicultural
educational courses would benefit college campuses by exposing students to oppressive
systems, those affected by them, as well as why these systems continue to exist. These
courses also involve providing tools for individuals to affect change in these systems,
which is important for fostering equity and accessibility. In the context of this paper,
multicultural educational courses would give students the tools and education necessary
for suppressing discriminatory campus behavior/culture that stem from ableism, while
also promoting the inclusion of SWDs in both physical and social atmospheres.
Psychologically speaking, improved social accessibility can positively affect the
experiences of students with disabilities (SWDs) by benefitting their emotional-wellbeing
(Burmeister, 2014). A study was conducted by Antle (2004) on 85 participants (college-
aged) that were either born with spina bifida or had acquired a severe spinal cord over the
course of their life. The study took form in a survey that was sent to the participants,

27
asking them to describe their perception of self-esteem and self-worth. What she found
was that majority of the respondents had similar levels of both self-esteem and
perceptions of self-worth as their other non-disabled peers. This was supplemented by the
fact that majority of the participants also documented having substantial social support
networks that helped them to feel emotionally supported, which Antle (2004) identified
as being the primary contributing factor that led to the participants’ self-reported healthy
emotional states. Furthermore, Burmeister (2014) asserts that SWDs who identify as
having strong social support systems (as a result of social accessibility) also tend to have
positive perceptions of self-worth.
Allyship
According to Tillman-Healy (2003), "When friendships do develop across social
groups, the bonds take on political dimensions. Opportunities exist for dual
consciousness-raising and for members of dominant groups …to serve as advocates for
friends" (p. 731). In this sense, friendships act as major opportunities for different
individuals to gain insight into each other’s lives. However Castrodale and Zingaro
(2015) assert that such friendships between individuals with disabilities and non-disabled
individuals hold the same potential, but these friendships are often romanticized; non-
disabled individuals are perceived as being courageous and/or kind for having a
friendship with a person with disabilities. According to Knoll (2009), research shows that
the more relationships SWDs have with non-disabled students, the more likely they are to
increase their social accessibility in higher education. This is the sight of a very large
problem in disability studies, primarily because gaining social accessibility seems to
necessitates gaining acceptance in a demographic who inherently benefits from ableism.

28
According to Castrodale and Zingaro (2015),
“Dominant research informed by the psy-sciences on disability and
friendship often uncritically represents disabled persons as fortunate
receivers of friendship from kind, able-bodied friendship givers.
Friendship is framed as a rehabilitative pill administered to disabled
persons to overcome their lacking, problematic, socially deficient bodies
and minds. Disability is understood as an individual problem which itself
represents a barrier to friendship” (p. 1).
Essentially Castrodale and Zingaro (2015) emphasize the lack of attention on the “critical
spaces” that friendships evolve within, particularly within the friendships that SWDs
have to their non-disabled peers. These critical spaces are natural bases for every
friendship: connecting through similarities, attempting to understand individual
differences, and engaging within active reciprocal work to maintain the relationships.
Being active in the critical space of a friendship between a non-disabled person and a
person with disabilities involves a higher level of engagement, self-reflection, and
accountability in order to understand how to deconstruct the inherent power dynamics of
that relationship (Kattari, 2015).
In this critical space of friendship, able-bodied individuals are provided with the
opportunity to deeply engage with their privileges, which involves an unpacking of how
their dominant identity relates to the larger system of ableism. According to Castrodale
and Zingaro (2015), students with disabilities (SWDs) and non-disabled students who
want to share a mutually beneficial social relationship need to actively engage in the

29
development of more critically nuanced ideas and conceptions around ability/disability.
Friendships can then become methods for creating allyships.
Ally relationships, in this context, are friendships between an individual with
disabilities and a person without disabilities where the non-disabled individual is actively
and purposefully attempting to understand the oppression with which they benefit from
(Kattari, 2015). We must also remember that relationships that students with disabilities
(SWDs) have with non-disabled persons also include professors and other staff, both of
whom are equally encouraged to think critically about their positionality as an able-
bodied person and their conceptions about dis/ability. This effort on behalf of able-bodied
persons, according to Kattari (2015), is necessary for engaging in a truly egalitarian
relationship with a person who has a disability. According to Tillman-Healy (2003),
research emphasizes allyships as being incredibly important not only because of their
propensity to provide support for ability diverse students, but also for raising awareness
around disability and able-bodied privilege that restricts accessibility experiences in
higher educational socio-spatial settings (Liasidou, 2014). Furthermore Kattari (2015)
suggests that in order for an allyship to exist and function in a socially just way, much is
contingent upon the efforts of the privileged party within that relationship to recognize
their privilege, while also acknowledging their position in the power differential of the
scope of society.
One issue responsible for delaying the formation of allyships is the perceptions of
disability by non-disabled students. According to the research from Grant and Zwier
(2011), non-disabled individuals who have had fewer interactions with disabled
individuals or information around disability studies, generally hold more negative

30
behaviors or attitudes towards students with disabilities (SWDs). Because able-
bodiedness is so pervasive and holds social dominance within our society, able-bodied
individuals on college campuses who have less experience with or knowledge of
disability rarely find the need or want to interact with SWDs. Liasidou (2014) would
argue that in order to combat negative attitudes or preconceptions about disability
(perpetuated by ability ideology), it is crucial to enhance the understanding about the
complexity of disability for non-disabled students and staff members that regularly come
into contact with SWDs. While enhancing these understandings, there is more incentive
for both increased disability awareness as well as positive attitudes, which help to foster
social accessibility and inclusion of diverse students demographics. This research
suggests that encouraged allyship can occur by incorporating multicultural and disability
education into not only the curricula of postsecondary institutions but also within other
areas where learning takes place other than the classroom (ex: teacher training,
independent groups on campus, student services) (Grant & Zwier, 2011). Providing these
types of resources to staff, faculty, and students alike create a potential for raising
awareness around disability, disability policy, and services that are offered to SWDs,
which in the wider scope help to combat the pervasive remnants of ableism in higher
education and extend accessibility for SWDs on college campuses.
Discussion
Given my previous experience and my examination of the current research, I
believe that future research would sincerely benefit from further exploring how the
pervasiveness of ability ideology, social and physical/object privileges, the use of

31
universal design and retrofitting, and the lack of allyship formations affect the
experiences of college students with disabilities (SWDs).
Based on the research that was reviewed for this paper, many of the sources that
examine ableism allude to the ideology of ability but often fail to incorporate this aspect
explicitly. I believe that Siebers’ (2008) work is extremely important when exploring the
topic of ableism and inaccessibility because it challenges social constructs of disability
that continue to perpetuate and validate ableistic oppression. Social and physical/object
privileges are aspects that I believe need further investigation in the current research on
inaccessibility of college campuses for they emphasize the ways in which the
opportunities of non-disabled persons and persons with disabilities differ and to what
degree. Having social and/or physical privilege in life is vastly different in comparison to
persons with disabilities who are not granted the same privileges. Future research would
benefit greatly by further exploring these two themes primarily because they are
inextricable components in sustaining ableism in higher education, and offer insight as to
how social and physical accessibility can be extended towards students with disabilities.
Universal design (UD) and retrofitting are being closely examined by the current
research, but not to the extent that feminist disability studies has explored this theme. I
believe that future research should examine the critiques offered by feminist disability
studies on critiquing the application of UD and retrofitting in the university physical and
social setting. By doing so, I believe that future researchers would gain a more in-depth
understanding of the impacts that these applications have on the experiences of students
with disabilieis (SWDs) in higher education.

32
Another suggestion that I have for future research is to focus on allyship and the
underdevelopment of allyships. Forming allyships amongst persons with disabilities and
non-disabled individuals is important for promoting equity between these two
demographics and for extending social accessibility for students with disabilities
(SWDs). Yet, not enough consideration is taken on how allyships that are egalitarian and
mutually socially beneficial in nature can form. Without this focus, we may continue to
promote allyships that are inequitable in nature and furthermore damage social
accessibility for SWDs on college campuses. It is my hope that future research will
further investigate the formation of egalitarian allyships that promote social accessibility
for underrepresented student demographics such as SWDs.
A large piece of essential information that I believe was ultimately lacking, and
that would also benefit the depth of future research, is the inclusion and emphasis on the
voices of students with disabilities (SWDs) that have been affected by social and physical
inaccessibility in the realm of higher education. There is a great need in the current
research to reference and illuminate the voice of this student demographic because their
experiences of facing ableism through inaccessibility lay as the foundation for this
research. Throughout my own exploration of the research I found this essential
component of the research to be underrepresented and even at times disregarded, which is
fairly unfortunate. In my opinion, it is imperative that future researchers change the
current status of research by fully incorporating the voices of those that are affected by
physical and social inaccessibility. I also believe that future research can benefit from
additionally incorporating this demographic into the process for finding solutions that
deconstruct and combat ableism. Based on my examination of the current research, I

33
believe that the aforementioned suggestions for future research would afford a deeper
understanding of the challenges that people with disabilities face and the efforts that can
be made to dismantle barriers to accessibility that are maintained by our ableistic
tendencies.
Conclusion
In this literature review, the negative impacts of social and physical inaccessibility on the
experiences of students with disabilities was explored. Within this examination of the
research, five impacts of inaccessibility, as communicated through ableism, have been
identified as lacking significant importance in the field of research around disability
studies in higher education. These five impacts have been shown to adversely affect the
college experiences of SWDs through: institution endorsement of ability ideology, the
pervasiveness of physical/object privilege, retrofitting and universal design, social
privilege, as well as the underdevelopment of allyship support. These findings articulate
an imperative, continuing need for reformation of and improvement in disability studies
and policy making within higher education. Furthermore, these findings call our attention
to the need for radical change in the way in which our society categorizes, treats, and
perceives persons with disabilities. It is our moral obligation to broaden our
understanding of the impacts of ableism on the lives of individuals with disabilities. In
doing so, it is my hope that we can consciously solicit solutions for combating ableism in
higher education and more importantly improving the learning experiences and
opportunities of college students with disabilities.

34
References
Antle, B. (2004). Factors associated with self-worth in young people with physical
disabilities. Health & Social Work, 29(3), 167-175 9p. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4b38d634-0a62-459d-
87fc-49e2e4e1b7b4%40sessionmgr4002&vid=2&hid=4103
Banfield-Hardaway, S. (2010). Universal Instructional Design: Tools for Creating an
Inclusive Educational Experience. Vermont Connection, 3121-28. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d74e90d9-db1b-4bbb-
adde-021fda8a12c2%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4103
Brandes, J.A., Crowson, H.M. (2009). Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of
students with disabilities: the role of conservative ideology and discomfort with
disability. Social Psychology Education, 12, 271-289. doi: 10.1007/s11218-008-
9077-8
Burmeister, A. (2014). Peer Acceptance and the Emotional Well-Being of Disabled
Individuals. Perspectives (University Of New Hampshire), 1-9. Retrieved
fromhttps://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-
journals/Perspectives2014_Burmeistr_0.pdf

35
Castrodale, M. A., & Zingaro, D. (2015). "You're such a good friend": A woven
autoethnographic narrative discussion of disability and friendship in Higher
Education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(1), 2. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?sid=e1dd40d1-33f0-4963-9666-
345d73550143%40sessionmgr4004&vid=2&hid=4103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRz
LWxpdmU%3d#AN=101583354&db=ehh
Cory, R. C. (2011). Disability services offices for students with disabilities: A campus
resource. New Directions For Higher Education, 2011(154), 27-36.
doi:10.1002/he.431
Devine, M. A. (2016). Leisure-Time Physical Activity: Experiences of College Students
With Disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 33(2), 176-194. Retrieved
from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=417f39a1-85bb-
4d03-acd8-c2b9c25edd88%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4103
Disability of College Campuses: An Overview. (2013). ASHE Higher Education Report,
39(5), 31-48. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.an.opal-
libraries.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e950423e-5ee5-416b-a066-
1de7afb608eb%40sessionmgr110&vid=4&hid=110
Ellman, L. (2012). Opening Eyes to the Blind: A Unit Plan that Confronts Ableism in a
Standards-Based General Education Classroom. Clearing House, 85(1), 15-22.
doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.604362

36
Erickson, L. (2016). Transforming Cultures of (Un)Desirability: Creating Cultures of
Resistance. Graduate Journal Of Social Science, 12(1), 11-22. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.an.opal-
libraries.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1be1e8a1-4e4f-454b-8545-
2159234afa2b%40sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4103
Garland-Thomson, R. (2005). Feminist Disability Studies. Signs, 30(2), 1557–1587.
http://doi.org/10.1086/423352
Grant, C. A., & Zwier, E. (2011). Intersectionality and Student Outcomes: Sharpening the
Struggle against Racism, Sexism, Classism, Ableism, Heterosexism, Nationalism,
and Linguistic, Religious, and Geographical Discrimination in Teaching and
Learning. Multicultural Perspectives, 13(4), 181-188.
doi:10.1080/15210960.2011.616813
Gossett, A., Mirza, M., Barnds, K.A., Feidt, D. (2009) Beyond access: A case study on
the intersection between accessibility, sustainability, and universal design.
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 4(6), 439-450. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org.an.opal-libraries.org/10.3109/17483100903100301
Hidden curriculum (2014). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform.
Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum

37
Hutcheon, E.J., Wolbring, G. (2012). Voices of “Disabled” Post Secondary Students:
Examining Higher Education “Disability” Policy Using an Ableism Lens. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education. 5(1), 39–49. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/dhe-a0027002.pdf
Kattari, S. (2015). Examining Ableism in Higher Education through Social Dominance
Theory and Social Learning Theory. Innovative Higher Education, 40(5), 375-
386. doi:10.1007/s10755-015-9320-0
King, K.A. (2009). A Review of Programs That Promote Higher Education Access for
Underrepresented Students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(1), 1-15.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014327
Knoll, K. R. (2009). Feminist Disability Studies Pedagogy. Feminist Teacher, 19(2), 122.
Lalvani, P., Broderick, A. A., Fine, M., Jacobowitz, T., & Michelli, N. (2015). Teacher
education, InExclusion, and the implicit ideology of Separate but Equal: An
invitation to a dialogue. Education, Citizenship & Social Justice, 10(2), 168.
doi:10.1177/1746197915583935
Leuchovius, D. (n.d.). Publications. Retrieved from
http://www.pacer.org/publications/adaqa/504.asp
Lewis, J. L. (2011). Student attitudes toward impairment: an assessment of passive and
active learning methods in urban planning education. Teaching In Higher
Education, 16(2), 237-249.

38
Liasidou, L. (2014). Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher
education. British Journal of Special Education. 41(2), 120-135. doi:
10.1111/1467-8578.12063
Martin, E.W., Martin, R., Terman, D.L. (1996) The Legislative and Litigation History of
Special Education. The Future of Children. Retrieved from
https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/06_01_01.pdf
Miller, R.A. (2015). Intersections of Disability, Gender, and Sexuality in Higher
Education: Exploring Students’ Social Identities and Campus Experiences.
Retrieved from
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/30997/MILLER-
DISSERTATION-2015.pdf?sequence=1
Raue, K., Lewis, L., Coopersmith, J. (2011). Students with Disabilities at Degree-
Granting Postsecondary Institutions: First Look. NCES: Institute of Education
Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011018.pdf
Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Simonson, S., Glick, S., & Nobe, M. C. (2013). Accessibility at a public university:
student's perceptions. Journal Of Facilities Management, 11(3), 198-209.
doi:10.1108/JFM-06-2012-0025

39
Solis, S. (2006). I'm “Coming Out” as Disabled, but I'm “Staying in” to Rest: Reflecting
on Elected and Imposed Segregation. Equity & Excellence In Education, 39(2),
146-153. doi: 10.1080/10665680500534007
Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., Mace, R. L., & North Carolina State Univ., R. D. (1998). The
Universal Design File: Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities. Revised
Edition. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED460554.pdf
Taylor, A. (2015). The Discourse of Pathology: Reproducing the Able Mind through
Bodies of Color. Hypatia, 30(1), 181-198. doi:10.1111/hypa.12123
Tillmann-Healy, L.M. (2003). Friendship as method. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(5), 729-749.
Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=cbac1841-4356-41c3-
a384-
0667bd6b8c60%40sessionmgr106&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdm
U%3d#AN=101583354&db=ehh
Watson, E., Bartless, F., Sacks, C., & Davidson, D. L. (2013). Implementing Universal
Design: A Collaborative Approach to Designing Campus Housing. Journal Of
College & University Student Housing, 39/40(2/1), 158-171. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d14b6c8a-2a1a-43c0-
b385-2ea7c0db59c7%40sessionmgr120&vid=10&hid=108

40
Wilhite, B., & Shank, J. (2009). In praise of sport: Promoting sport participation as a
mechanism of health among persons with a disability. Disability and Health
Journal, 2, 116–127. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2009.01.002
Yoh, T., Mohr, M., & Gordon, B. (2008). Assessing Satisfaction With Campus
Recreation Facilities Among College Students With Physical Disabilities.
Recreational Sports Journal, 32(2), 106-113.

D Jerkan Final Senior Project Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (10)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to D Jerkan Final Senior Project Paper

Similar to D Jerkan Final Senior Project Paper (20)

D Jerkan Final Senior Project Paper