Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020.

1. 1Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified
for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020.
From enthusiasm to practice
Antti Raike
Aalto University &
Kjetil Knarlag
Universell

2. The relational model: People with Disabilities
(PwD) meet Enabling Environment
• The relational model comprises individual and environmental factors
• Disability is seen as a ‘gap’ or a misfit in the interaction between a person and the environment
Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020. 2
D
I
S
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Demands from the environment
Individual capabilities
Change the
environment through
collaborative design
and reasonable
adjustments
Strenghtening a person
through training and
individual assistive
technology and aids

3. 3
Understanding Design for All (DfA) principle
Level 1:
Inclusive/Universal design, DfA:
Including most people in the
ordinary solutions
Level 4:
Personal assistance where adjustments,
assistive technology and inclusive solutions
are not sufficient.
Level 3:
Reasonable adjustments to the
individual. E.g.: Assistive technology
compatible with the level 1 solutions
Level 2:
Adaptions to groups with similar needs,
i.e. Accessible Literature for people with
reading difficulties, translations etc.
Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020.

4. Levels of decision
1. Macro level – the board, president, provost, PMT,
deans
• Policies, ownership, action plan, economy, delegation and
demands from above, reports, quality system – the overall
framework (level 1)
2. Meso level – service providors, programme
coordinators
• Course planning (flexibility), accessible services and systems
3. Micro level – faculty, staff, students, counsellors
• Individual education plans, access to technology, usability of
technology, UDL, individual accommodation (level 4)
4Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020.

5. Inclusive design in Aalto University
• Adapted as an action plan based on strategy
in creating an inclusive and enabling learning
environment for all Aalto students
• Ministry demand: Action plan for equality
• Aalto University: Assignment from the Ministry
of Education and Culture (OKM) about DfA in
higher education
• Barrier-free buildings and campus environment
• Accessible ICT and blended learning environment
• Accessible teaching and learning
Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020. 5

6. • DfA will affect important areas of
everyday student life at the campus
• Enhanced focus on diversity
• Easier to sell the UD concept to
management, faculty and staff
since it gains all students
• Legislation and standards of
buildings, campus area and ICT
• Improvement in Aalto buildings
• Accessible websites
• Inclusive education
• Anti-discrimination and good
relations
6Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020.
The pros and the cons of DfA in Aalto University
• Disability questions seem to
disappear
• The human perspective might be
neglected when the focus is on
standards and regulations
• Too much focus on ramps and
elevators (high expenses), thus
areas like UDL and DfA of ICT in
learning are left out in the “official”
understanding of UD
• (Minimum) standards are rarely
questioned - lack of ambition!
• A common misunderstanding that
“everyone is taken care of” by DfA –
remember levels 3 & 4!
What do we gain? What do we loose?

7. The main challenge – Our strategy, mission and values!
• The quality of services offered to the students is a big issue
and questioned by people with disabilities
• When times get rough (lack of resources), there’s a tendency
of going back to buried attitudes of blaming the individual
• “We can’t change the system because of a few blind students”
• Even student unions and others are questioning if DfA is necessary –
especially when it comes to student housing and learning
management systems (LMS).
• Someone starts to count students with disabilities and the cost of DfA
• Is the medical model of disability still alive at Aalto University?
• Do we still have to depend on the enthusiasts and champions
when it comes to an inclusive learning environment and
“education for all”?
7Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020.

8. Credits and contact information
Original presentation by Kjetil Knarlag
Universell, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
E-mail: kjetil.knarlag@ntnu.no
www.universell.no
8
Edited by Antti Raike
for Aalto University (2020)
Presentation by Kjetil Knarlag at LINK-conference in 2014. Edited, updated and modified for Aalto University by Antti Raike in 2020.
Pictures:
Dia 3: Ihmisketju, © Suomen WWF
Dia 3: Henkilökohtainen avustaja, © https://www.facebook.com/AvustajaApu/