What?

1. Not dis-ability, possibly in-abilitiesStand-alone Edition= includes summary of oral presentation & extra explanatory slides-Vincent BoulangerMasterstudent Social & Cultural Anthropology at KU Leuven

2. What? • Results from a thesis-research on disability in the Flemish Higher Education • Conducted between September 2012 & July 2013 • Under the guidance of Prof. Patrick Devlieger (Anthropology, KU Leuven) & Meggie Verstichele (SIHO) • At 5 Flemish HEI (3 universities, 2 university colleges) • Hybrid of quantitative and qualitative research • Surveys in auditoria • Follow-up interviews • Participant observation • Survey staff members • Comprised 1266 students, 184 of which disclosed having a disability

3. Aims of the research • To get a better understanding of students with a disability: • Who are they? • What are their stories? • How does their study-trajectory differ from other students? • Map the difference between students who disclose their disability to the HEI or choose not to. • Compare these findings with other students, and students who claim to experience other “barriers” in the course of their study.

4. Survey results: students with a disability (total & disclosed) Universities University Colleges: biased due to surveyed program.

5. Students with a disability

6. About the participants: a representative bunch • +/- 20 participants • At least 2 from each HEI • Most didn’t disclose to HEI • Varying SES-background • Background tended to affect studies • Background affected coping skills. (more on slide 11&12) Extra: though the participants were small in number, there was no reason to assume a significant bias. As the research progressed, participants also became less critical due to expanded surveys.

7. What does this tell us? Much higher number of students with a disability than most HEI’s assume Difference in disclosure rates depending on the type of disability Difference in amount of students with a disability & type of disability depending on program No (significant) difference in number between the first phase of a program & later phases.

8. Why register? –A conscious choice

9. But not always the ‘right’ choice While most non-disclosing students don’t experience significant difficulties, there are some exceptions: • Students who do not register for privacy-reasons, only to find out they need support afterwards. • Students who believe they’ll manage, only to find out they couldn’t • Refuse disclore & support due to previous negative experiences • Some didn’t know their impairment qualified them for special support = HEI’s need to have an adequat registration-system and explain why disclosing matters!

10. And disclosing doesn’t always result in the intended effect The students who disclose can be divided into two groups: those who felt they couldn’t cope without support, and those who knew there wasn’t any harm in disclosing, who are generally much less susceptible to delays in study-progress. (e.a. Coping-skills) Disclosing helps the student in most cases, and reduces their vulnerability. • Some students report their program refuses reasonable accomodations • Some say they face discrimination due to disclosing • Some expect more support rather than solely reasonable accomodations

11. Ableism Coping-skills= central to a good study experience • The more “tricks” you have, the higher your learning outcome • “Tricks” are complementary with other “sensible” choices (whether or not you disclose, what program you study, ...) • The learning of “tricks” relies either on social status or on the school you were in. • The Flemish Compulsory Education system is considered to be reproducing unequality (Hirt, Nicaise & De Zutter, “De School van de ongelijkheid” The School of Inequality) Obtaining “coping-skills” is therefore much more a matter of luck, than it is of ability.

12. Extra slide: Coping-expanded The process of obtaining coping-skills depends on the ‘quality’ of the study experience. Roughly stated: each student with a disability in the research ran into some kind of trouble at school: bullying, social stigma, discrimination, ... Or their disability influenced the advice they got. ( =many were suggested to follow an ‘easier’ trajectory where their own interest or achievements were secondary to the perceived impact of the disability) Hence, if the student or his environment did not react to these situations, the quality of their learning decreased. Consequently, the resistance the student can offer of the strength of the network he can mobilize for his cause, becomes the determining factor. These correlate with other socio-economic variables. Hence the description of ‘luck’, since this has very little to do with potential. Addendum: of course there were positive stories about schools and teachers as well. The latter could also be part of a network.

13. Coping not exclusive to students with a disability • Also “registered” barriers • About 14% of the students experiences other difficulties • Difficulties studying • Difficulties focussing • Inadequate preparation • ... = often correlates with other disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities, first generation students, financially disadvantaged students, part-time students) = coping skills also subject to “luck” = often a post-problem analysis: number of “barriers” significantly higher in non-first fase surveys. NOT “I have a barrier, which will affect my grades” BUT “I have unsatisfying grades, I must have some kind of barrier” In about a third of the examined cases ( +/- 5%) reported “barriers” were “actual hindrances” • Impact often similar to disability, although seemingly less severe • Solutions also similar (&questions for support also similar)

14. A solution: social networks

15. Extra slide: explanation of the following slides • These slides represent auditoria, the room where the students were sitting in the moment they took the survey. • Each row is a row of chairs, each column is a chair. • If a cell is occupied with a number, a student sat on that chair in that row. • In the second and the third case there are three versions: • The raw data: did the student report a disability, a barrier, or nothing in the survey? • Processed data: here the reports were compensated for ‘actual hindrances’ based on student’s responses on those questions • HEI’s point of view: based on the students with disabilities or barriers that reported they disclosed in the survey.

16. An auditorium

17. Another auditorium (raw data & compensated for ‘actual’ hindrance)

18. The same auditorium, but “actual hindrance” versus “HEI’s auditorium”

19. Yet another auditorium: raw data

20. That other auditorium, by “actual hindrance”

21. ...and by the HEI’s point of view

22. Students with “significant hindrances” often in contact with each other • Closer friendship between students • Stronger effect among students with a disability • Can “find” each other in a group, in spite of the fact their HEI can’t. • In spite of the large majority of disabilities being invisible • Experience of “being different” seems to be the key marker • Support each other passivly or activly • Offers perspective for inclusive HE approaches

23. Relationships: 34% of “friends” 39% of “close friends” (sum)42% friends & 51% close friends (average, vs. 26% probability)

24. Extra slide: explanation on the previous slide • I believe the averages to be better indicators, because each person receives equal weight. (otherwise the number of friends influences the equation) • Also (to an extent) negates different interpretations of “friendship” and “close friendships” • Which are subjective terms, different interpretations were unavoidable. • The numbers were the students who experienced a “actual hindrance” from slide 20. • Most likely explanation is a similar form of “social capital” to what Pierre Bourdieu describes in “La Distinction” =similar experiences generate similar traits, appreciated by those who share them, and thus groups form. • Or Patrick Fougeyrollas’ Disability Creation Process.

25. Conclusions The group of students with a disability is not that heterogeneous Not so vulnerable as Flemish research or numbers indicate Reasonable Accomodations are useful, but need to be matched with inclusive practices Some responsibility also lies with the compulsory education system. ( =actually, make that “a lot of responsibility.” Since education should be meritocratic by nature. If they reinforce existing unequalities something is very wrong!) Existence of a “disability-network” Requires more research

26. Suggestions • HEI’s should be more than just providers of reasonable accomodations = study-facilitators • Not accord excessive attention to disclosure. =since disclosure rates are affected by how the students perceives both the advantages and the disadvantages, explaining why disclosing matters will likely yield better results than a better procedure or asking multiple times. • Work inclusive: disadvantaged groups have some shared needs • And in most cases are capable of adapting general tools to their specific needs.

27. Questions? E-mail: vincent.blngr@gmail.com