The accessibility momentum has grown exponentially over the last decade in Canada, much like it has in other jurisdictions. With growing numbers of students making requests for accessibility services, and vast numbers of students identifying as experiencing barriers in learning, discussing the inclusion of students with disabilities has now become the norm on most post-secondary. Campuses. Delivery of services has had to be refined and accelerated. There is innovation in the way faculty are now engaged in a reflection on inclusion. Importantly inclusive design is now talked about much more openly, with faculty embracing their role as designers and Universal Design for Learning taking a central stage within the Teaching and Learning suites that support instructors. While change has been impressive and it is now fair to assert that higher education is much more focused than ever on inclusion, this discourse remains very narrowly focused on impairment and disability. This is problematic in many ways and threatens the further development of inclusive policies and of effective universal design practices. (i) First this narrow conceptualization of students with disabilities is problematic as it fails to acknowledge intersectionality and the way these students’ lived experience often also involves marginalization on the basis of nationality, race, sexual orientation, and gender. (ii) It becomes rapidly clear when instructors adopt a barriers analysis in the redesign of their courses or assessment with the use of inclusive design lenses such as UDL, that the barriers experienced by students with disabilities are also commonly encountered by other diverse learners. Efforts to convince instructors of the pressing need for inclusive design therefore lose momentum by ignoring many of the learners this reflection is pertinent for. (iii) Lastly in terms of strategic change and of the embedding of inclusive design in the mission statements and sustainable plans of campuses, there is strength in numbers and the lack of interdisciplinary discourse on inclusion and accessibility weakens efforts for growth of this agenda. This fully interactive session will lead participants to thoroughly explore the interdisciplinary networks and dialogues that are necessary on their campuses to trigger change and to widen the discourse on accessibility to include all key stakeholders. It is action focused and aims to offer the participants the opportunity to develop an immediate plan as to the ways they can become change agent in this process of interdisciplinary work around accessibility. The session is based on qualitative research carried out in Canada with faculty and support personnel that seeks to explore the hurdles and opportunities that currently exist within the process of creating interdisciplinary efforts towards accessibility across post-secondary institutions.

1. Pacific Rim Conference on Disability and Diversity
Frederic |Fovet, PhD.
March 7th, 2023, Honolulu.
Towardsan intersectionalapproachto accessibilityin the
post-secondarylandscape.
Examiningtheneedformindsetshiftinhighereducationtocreateinterdisciplinary
approachestoinclusion.

2. Land Acknowledgement
• I am honoured to live on the
unceded and ancestral
territory of the Syilx Peoples
and to work on the unceded
and ancestral territory of the
Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc
people. I also acknowledge
the Aboriginal custodians of
this land, their Elders and
their claims to land.

3. Objectives of the Session
• Section 1: Examine the areas of
tension in current approaches to
accessibility and inclusion in higher
and further education
• Section 2: Explore the usefulness of
an ecological lens to update and
modify strategic approaches to access
and inclusion on campuses
• Section 3: Examine the specific
multidisciplinary collaboration that
must be generated
• Section 4: Examine, lucidly and
pragmatically, the remaining hurdles
to this process of change.
• Section 5: Reflect on how to attain
authentic interdisciplinarity?

4. Personal lens and methodological stance
• Unique positioning as a scholar: have been
both an Accessibility Services manager and a
faculty member
• Was involved in large scale UDL
implementation from 2011 to 2016 across a
campus – experienced this process in its full
complexity
• Have also been Academic Lead/ Program Head
at UPEI and RRU, and have needed to guide
contract faculty around inclusive teaching and
the use of UDL.
• Act as an Inclusion and UDL consultant with
colleges and universities in Canada.
• My research and scholarship focuses on UDL/
social model/ critical disability studies
• I will be drawing from these multiple and
varied perspectives
• In many ways, I live and experience the issue
of silos in accessibility in most aspects of my
practice.

5. Getting to know you: Insights into your UDL journey
• We will take a few minutes to
explore your own personal
positioning in this reflection on
accessibility and inclusion in higher
education/ importance of
multidisciplinary approaches to
accessibility.
• We will use Menti to explore these
perspectives (www.menti.com).
• Please mention what your
professional lens is and what
interests you in the notion of
innovative multidisciplinary/
interdisciplinary approaches to
accessibility in higher education.

6. Section 1: Examine the areas of tension in
current approaches to transforming
accessibility and inclusion in higher and further
education
Reflecting on the lack of sustainability in the present
model of disability service provision in higher education

7. What is not working in the current disability service
provision model?
• Whole room interactive
discussion ( 5 minutes)
• This is a small enough group
for us to be able to chat
informally.
• Please then share with the
room your concerns about
the sustainability of current
models

8. Six facets of a quickly changing landscape
• This is triangulated date which has emerged from my four years of advocacy
in my former role as head of accessibility on a large Canadian campus
• Changing demographics/ volumes of demands for services
• Fast changing shift in definitions/ explosion of diagnoses
• Urgent need to integrate the social model of disability in teaching and
learning/ urgency of shifting to a ‘barrier analysis’ approach
• Need for sustainable practices (individual sustainability, sustainability of
teaching practices, institutional financial sustainability)
• Growing power of the student voice
• A fast-spreading concern for social justice in higher education

9. Should inclusion and accessibility still be defined in
terms of impairment/ disability?
• Once we shift to social model approaches to inclusion and adopt practices that
reflect this mindset, there is growing unease around medicalized and restrictive
practices in service provision.
• Once a ‘barrier analysis’ approach is adopted, it becomes clear that many other
diverse learners experience barriers to learning that are similar to those encountered
by students with disabilities.
• Intersectionality is discussed in the literature but is rarely acknowledged in a service
provision model that is siloed and fragmented
• There is currently no real effort to bring in the full spectrum of diverse learners into
the discussion when examining accessibility; the discourse on accessibility is
hermetic
• Yet models and practices that translated the social model in action are pertinent to
a very broad spectrum of diverse learners.

10. The social model of disability

11. Key take away
• It is crucial to reframe our
understanding of accessibility
and inclusion, as current
practices are narrow and
restrictive, based on a deficit
approach, lead to a
fragmented format of service
provision, and are
unsustainable.

12. Section 2: Explore the usefulness of an
ecological lens to update and modify
strategic approaches to access and
inclusion on campuses
Adopting a theoretical lens that supports multidisciplinary
innovation in accessibility in higher education

13. Finding a suitable theoretical lens
• Accessibility and Inclusion in higher education represent an area where there is little
theoretical clarity.
• People talk about ‘inclusion’ but actually use diametrically opposed theoretical
stances: medical model, welfare model, social capital theory, social model of
disability, Human Rights model, etc.
• Even then, most scholarship focuses solely on the socio-economic or pedagogical
aspects of inclusion and their impact on leaner outcomes.
• The strategic and organizational aspect of change management (how do we get our
campuses to do things differently?) is entirely absent from the current discourse on
inclusion.
• And yet it is this strategic dimension which is the most problematic. It is this
dimension which is condemning projects to failure and is stalling change.
• This perspective requires a fresh theoretical lens.

14. Ecologicallens to frame the implementationof transformative
approachesto accessibilityand inclusionin higher ed
• I suggest in my research that
it is urgent the field adopt
ecological theory to examine
the process of change all
institutions are faced with
when it comes to
• What is ecological theory?
• Why is it pertinent in this
organizational context?

15. Towards ecology: a narrative overview
• The process of change in higher education when it comes to inclusion and accessibility
usually has little to do with the direction of the change itself – it is mostly focused around the
politics of change
• Higher education is a multi-layered, complex, and stratified/ hierarchical environment
• Much depends on who is placed in charge of the process of change. Who is the driver of
change?
• What are there existing relationships/ their credibility with other stakeholders?
• When campuses seek to shift towards social model approaches, inclusive design, or Universal
Design for Learning (UDL), the key question is “who will introduce and lead this agenda?”
• Accessibility Services? Teaching and Learning Services? Specific department or discipline?
Instructional designers? Senior administration?
• Through my own experiences with inclusive design/ the implementation of UDL, ecological
mapping has become increasingly significant to understand the complexity of the task.

16. Need for an ecological lens on UDL
implementation across institutions
Fovet (2021)

17. Who will be/ should be in driver seat in
your institution?
• Take 3-4 minutes to discuss
among colleagues the group/
unit you see as responsible for
the promotion of change on
your campus in relation to
accessibility/ inclusion (inclusive
design, UDL, multidisciplinary
approaches to service
provision).
• We will return to the large
group to share our thoughts.

18. Key take away
• The implementation of innovative multidisciplinary approaches to inclusion is
not just about pedagogical design.
• Campus-wide adoption of new stances/ wide, progressive strategies to
accessibility is a process of management of change. It requires strategic
organizational planning.

19. Section 3: Section 3: Examine the
specific multidisciplinary collaboration
that must be generated
Who are we not currently involving in accessibility
and inclusion on higher education campuses?

20. Interactive dialogue: Who is missing at the table?
• Take a few minutes with your
colleagues to discuss who on your
campus should be involved in UDL
adoption but is currently missing at
table?
• Why are they not involved in this
process?
• How would you be able to facilitate
their involvement?
• What immediate action will you need
to take for this to become possible?
• We will return to the whole group for
discussions.

21. Who is missing at the table?
• Staff supporting International
students
• Staff supporting Indigenous
students
• Staff supporting racialized
students/ culturally diverse
students
• Staff supporting socio-
economically challenged students
• Staff supporting first generation
students
• Staff supporting life-long learners

22. Momentum in numbers
• When ‘pitching’ improvements in accessibility
and the implementation of inclusive design/
UDL to senior administration, numbers will
matter.
• Important to tally various segments of the
student population who can benefit from this
change and to bring these groups into the
momentum for increased accessibility in the
classroom.
• Need for a change in mindset from folks in
accessibility
• Urgency of bringing in colleagues and of
changing our discourse to be pertinent to
other professionals
• Reflects a wider reality of intersectionality
within the field of disability itself
• Relevance of #disabilitytoowhite
• In this neoliberal landscape, numbers =
momentum!

23. Involving students
• Looking at change in inclusive
approaches from a student
perspective: an ambivalent process
• Example of UDL implementation and
of the ‘transitional friction’ that
occurs.
• Urgency of involving students in this
process of change
• Currently there is very little
scholarship or research on students
as partners in the process of shifting
accessibility practices and processes
away from medical/deficit model

24. Key take away
• There is an urgent need to reconsider strategically which stakeholders need to
be involved in accessibility and inclusion in the post-secondary sector. The
historical reliance on accessibility services is now obsolete.

25. Section 4: Examine, lucidly and
pragmatically, the remaining hurdles to
this process of change.
Adopting a theoretical lens that supports multidisciplinary
innovation in accessibility in higher education

26. Acknowledging campus power dynamics
• There are very specific campus
power dynamics which come in
the way of the work we wish to
do towards multidisciplinary
and intersectional work on
accessibility .
• What are some of the campus
power dynamics that have
hindered your work with
multidisciplinary work, or broad
approaches to accessibility
(with approaches such as UDL)?

27. Supporting campus stakeholders as they
transition to a new mindset
• Everyone wants a clear and logical roadmap
• It does not exist
• Campuses are complex and contradictory environments where often opposite
policies co-exist
• For a number of years to come we will have to straddle two systems and
make our staff comfortable with this
• It is not an excuse to maintain status quo
• It must be embraced and navigated with comfort

28. Acknowledging campus power dynamics
• Hierarchical issues in the power relationship the stakeholders entertain
• Breaking these hierarchical issues: examining power and its implications in terms of
who begins the dialogue around accessibility, barriers, and inclusive design
• Beyond silos: recreating a way to engage among each other across campuses
• Pragmatic lens: Easier, for example, to engage with faculty from the position of
instructor
• Eroding the ‘two solitudes’: faculty are not always unwilling to adapt; they may
simply be under-resources and overs-solicited – Important to debunk perpetuated
myths
• Resources must be formatted in a way that is congenial to various stakeholders, and
not onerous [e.g. 2 minute videos from colleagues]
• Acknowledging academic freedom and its implications

29. Funding models are changing but perpetuatedeficit
model approaches
• It will be difficult to fully
implement change and widen
the impact of
multidisciplinary approaches
until funding models have
evolved.
• In the mean time it is usually
a matter of supporting staff in
being comfortable ‘sitting
between two chairs’ in terms
of funding models

30. Identifying blind spots
• Ensure there are no blind spots
in the work that you embrace in
your multidisciplinary approach
to inclusion and diversity
• Mental health remains a ‘no go
area’ even for long term UDL
advocates/ rarely tackled by
access inclusive design scholars
and advocates.
• Indigenous education is also an
area which is entirely ignored by
scholarship on accessibility.

31. Acknowledging the need for other pedagogical facets
in teaching and learning
• Inclusion and accessibility are not the be all and end all in higher ed teaching
and learning
• The COVID pandemic has provided us with examples of fully inclusive and
accessible that did not ‘work’ for students
• This is particularly true of the online and hybrid model where other essential
pedagogical components are also needed
• Notion of ‘personalized learning’ in online teaching is increasingly important
and may not be achieved by accessibility/ inclusive design alone. A course
can be fully accessible and not engaging to a student.
• There are core teaching objectives which sometimes clash with accessibility/
inclusion imperatives but must remain central to our teaching and learning
concerns: example of team work/ social constructivist approaches.

32. Key take away
• Change will not occur overnight and it is important to remain lucid and
pragmatic in the ways we tackle change.

33. Section 4: Reflect on how to attain authentic
interdisciplinarity
Going beyond multidisciplinarity: interdisciplinarity as a
sustainable new mindset/ workplace model

34. Interdisciplinarity vs. multidisciplinarity
• Multidisciplinary approaches
imply service providers return
to their own field eventually
• An interdisciplinary vision of
broad support for
accessibility and inclusion in
higher education implies the
creation of permanent teams
and units.

35. Questions

36. References & Resources (contd.)
Bashan, J., Blackorby, J., & Marino, M. (2020) Opportunity in Crisis: The Role of Universal Design for Learning in
Educational Redesign. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 71-91.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1264277.pdf
Chita-Tegmark, M., Gravel, J. W., Maria De Lourdes, B. S., Domings, Y., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Using the Universal
Design for Learning Framework to Support Culturally Diverse Learners. Journal of Education, 192(1), 17–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741219200104
Dickinson, K. J., & Gronseth, S. L. (2020). Application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Principles to Surgical
Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of surgical education, 77(5), 1008–1012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.06.005
Fovet, F. (2021a) Developing an Ecological Approach to Strategic UDL Implementation in Higher Education.
Journal of Education and Learning, 10(4).
Fovet, F. (Ed.) (2021b) Handbook of Research on Applying Universal Design for Learning Across Disciplines:
Concepts, Case Studies, and Practical Implementation. IGI Global
Fovet, F. (2020) Universal Design for Learning as a Tool for Inclusion in the Higher Education Classroom: Tips for
the Next Decade of Implementation. Education Journal. Special Issue: Effective Teaching Practices for Addressing
Diverse Students’ Needs for Academic Success in Universities, 9(6), 163-172.
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=196&doi=10.11648/j.edu.20200906.13

37. References & Resources
Fovet, F. (2019) Not just about disability: Getting traction for UDL implementation
with International Students. In: Kate Novak & Sean Bracken (Eds.) Transforming
Higher Education through Universal Design for Learning: An International Perspective,
Routledge.
James, K. (2018) Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a Structure for Culturally
Responsive Practice. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 13(1), Article 4.
Kennette, L., & Wilson, N. (2019) Universal Design for Learning: What is it and how do
I implement it? Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning, 12(1)
Kilpatrick, J.R.., Ehrlich, S., & Bartlett, M. (2021) Learning from COVID-19: Universal
Design for Learning Implementation Prior to and During a Pandemic. The Journal of
Applied Instructional Design.
https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_10_1/universal_design_forS
Sheik Mohamed, S.A., & Sivakumar, R. (2020). Inclusiveness in Higher Education
through Universal Design Learning – UDL. Think India Journal, 22(45), 23-26.
https://thinkindiaquarterly.org/index.php/think-india/article/view/19702

38. Contact details
• Frederic Fovet (PhD.)
• Assistant Professor, School of Education, Thompson Rivers University
• ffovet@tru.ca
• UDL and Inclusion Consultant
• Implementudl@gmail.com
• @Ffovet
• www.implementudl.com