Informatics 03

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 19

informatics

Article
Disabling and Enabling Technologies for Learning in
Higher Education for All: Issues and Challenges
for Whom?
Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta 1, *,† , Giulia Messina Dahlberg 2,† and Ylva Winther 3,†
1 School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University, Jönköping 551 11, Sweden
2 School of Health and Education, Skövde University, Skövde 541 28, Sweden; giulia.messina.dahlberg@his.se
3 Karlstad Municipality, Nyed Primary School (13–16 years), Molkom 660 60, Sweden;
ylva.winther@karlstad.se
* Correspondence: sangeeta.bagga-gupta@ju.se; Tel.: +46-036-101-419
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Academic Editor: Antony Bryant


Received: 18 December 2015; Accepted: 25 October 2016; Published: 28 October 2016

Abstract: Integration, inclusion, and equity constitute fundamental dimensions of democracy in


post-World War II societies and their institutions. The study presented here reports upon the ways in
which individuals and institutions both use and account for the roles that technologies, including
ICT, play in disabling and enabling access for learning in higher education for all. Technological
innovations during the 20th and 21st centuries, including ICT, have been heralded as holding
significant promise for revolutionizing issues of access in societal institutions like schools, healthcare
services, etc. (at least in the global North). Taking a socially oriented perspective, the study presented
in this paper focuses on an ethnographically framed analysis of two datasets that critically explores
the role that technologies, including ICT, play in higher education for individuals who are “differently
abled” and who constitute a variation on a continuum of capabilities. Functionality as a dimension
of everyday life in higher education in the 21st century is explored through the analysis of (i) case
studies of two “differently abled” students in Sweden and (ii) current support services at universities
in Sweden. The findings make visible the work that institutions and their members do through
analyses of the organization of time and space and the use of technologies in institutional settings
against the backdrop of individuals’ accountings and life trajectories. This study also highlights the
relevance of multi-scale data analyses for revisiting the ways in which identity positions become
framed or understood within higher education.

Keywords: functionality; disability; technology; higher education; support services; ethnography;


learning

1. Introduction
“Like policies and programs, technology seems to have the capacity to identify, define, and
transform the significance of disability. As in the case of policies, programs, and organizations,
however, technology must be analysed and understood within a social context” [1] (p. 18).
Technological innovations during the 20th and 21st centuries, including the exponential growth
of Information and Communication Technologies (henceforth ICT), have been heralded as holding
significant promise for revolutionizing issues of access in societal institutions like schools, healthcare
services, higher education (henceforth HE), etc. (at least in the global North). Taking a socially
oriented perspective on “ways-of-being-with-words” [2], including language- and technology-in-use
(see Section 2), the study presented in this paper explores the ways in which individuals and institutions
use and/or account for the roles that technologies, including ICT, play in enabling (or disabling)

Informatics 2016, 3, 21; doi:10.3390/informatics3040021 www.mdpi.com/journal/informatics


Informatics 2016, 3, 21 2 of 19

inclusion, transitions, and participation for learning in HE, which is envisaged as being open to all
citizens in society.
The range of capabilities that are provided for and/or hindered in the everyday lives of
individuals, i.e., functionality, and the role that technologies play in the lives of human beings,
is focused upon in terms of dimensions of everyday life in institutions of HE in the 21st century.
This was explored through a critical scrutiny of six Swedish university websites in 2015. These online
platforms were studied with regards to their services for different student groups and personnel
(including the differently abled). This was complemented by an analysis of case studies of two
differently abled individuals who have been students in HE in the 21st century in Sweden. (While we
recognize that boundaries of geopolitical spaces of nation-states (like Sweden or Italy) are problematic
units for analytical purposes, pursuing supraregional positions is beyond the scope of the present
paper. In other words, the geopolitical spaces—including virtual spaces of Sweden—are termed
Sweden in this study.) The results presented in this paper will, it is suggested, function as a point of
departure for a more informed and reflective discussion about the role that technologies, institutions,
policy makers, and not least students and personnel (including faculty) play in the creation of flexible,
open, and inclusive transitions in and across the Swedish HE landscape in the 21st century.

2. Theoretical Framings: Ableism, Learning, and Technologies

2.1. Access and Participation: Technologies and Education for All?


Technologically disrupting innovations like personal computers, smartphones, tablets, etc. have
enabled widespread access to educational content as well as to other people who share similar needs
related to (im)mobility [3,4]. The advent of the Internet has brought greater accessibility to educational
content through e.g., open educational resources (OER), massive online open courses (MOOCs),
or institutionally framed online educational activities. The last two decades have concomitantly seen
the emergence of an interest in the study of alternative (virtual) spaces for learning and instruction,
not least since education is potentially open for everyone, anywhere 24/7, especially when it comes to
asynchronous online learning [5,6]. This does not mean, however, that such openness and flexibility
are general, global prerogatives. The direct causality (implied in positivistic approaches) between
a greater openness and accessibility and the use of digital technology is, from a humanistic perspective,
considered simplistic and reductionist. In other words, the latter perspective suggests that technology
in itself cannot be reduced to an agent that enables access. As Whyte and Ingstad highlight, “[o]ne of
the most important dimensions in the study of technological change is its implications for patterns of
sociality” [1] (p. 20). Such a conceptual position, where the focus is on the patterns of sociality, implies
a view of technology-in-use both in terms of the complex affordances and constraints that are made
relevant in specific situations.
Some of our previous research in school settings shows that access to technologies does not
automatically create opportunities for learning and participation (see e.g., [7–9]). For example,
our studies of mainstream primary grade classroom settings where cochlear-implanted deaf and
hearing pupils are members have identified three types of technologies-in-use: (i) hearing technologies;
(ii) literacy technologies; and (iii) communicative-link technologies. Hearing-related technologies
facilitate sound perception and include microphones, the implants, as well as noise-reducing
adjustments such as school desks with self-closing lids and special ceilings with acoustic tiles for
creating a special acoustic environment. Literacy-related technologies or tools have, in our previous
studies (see e.g., [7,10,11]), been reported as including SMARTboards, pictures of the alphabet
combined with Swedish Sign Language (henceforth SSL), a hand alphabet for each letter, pictures,
pens, books, etc. The third group of technologies in these previous ethnographically framed studies
are labelled “communicative-link technologies” [12,13]; these include human beings or textual artifacts
that focus on people and their linguistic behaviors. For instance, interpreters and resource persons
who relay spoken communication into SSL have been identified in terms of communicative-link
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 3 of 19

technologies. Classroom posters with the SSL hand alphabet, or words and phrases in English or
other language varieties that support as well as highlight communicative resources in the classroom
environment, are also described in terms of this third type of technology. What is important for
the purposes of the present study is the fact that access to hearing amplification technology like
Cochlear Implants (henceforth CI) does not imply that deaf students become automatically included
in the social practices in classroom settings. Rather, such studies illustrate that technology used by
teachers and resource persons (or assistants) inside classroom settings tends to become a power tool
that is curtailing some social practices; such technology-infused classrooms nevertheless get framed
in terms of a better, inclusive environment for deaf pupils with CI. This issue is also illustrated in
Winther’s and Bagga-Guptas’ studies of access and participation possibilities in mainstream middle
school environments where a blind pupil is a member ([11–13]; see data presented on this case in
Section 3). Thus, the role of resource persons or assistants and technologies bring to the forefront some
complexities that enable but also disable inclusion. In other words, access to formal education and the
deployment of technologies cannot per se be equated to inclusive participation or what is glossed in
the concept one education for all.

2.2. A Socially Oriented Position: Languaging and Doing Identity


New technologies, including disrupting technologies and assistive technologies, have altered
the constitution and experience of functionality. Assistive technologies potentially include disruptive
technologies, but refer primarily to special accommodative technologies designed for or used by
differently abled individuals. Thus for instance, CI, braille machines, text-enhancing screen programs,
etc. constitute assistive technologies. Digitized assistive technologies can also come under the
disruptive technologies umbrella. While assistive technologies are said to hold major promise for
enhancing the life quality of the differently abled, there exists a paucity of research that focuses on how
these explicitly contribute to inclusion in educational environments generally and in institutions of
HE specifically. A humanistically framed, socially oriented position on learning, communication, and
identity recognizes that interaction including language use (or “languaging” [14]) and the deployment
of technologies is a fundamental dimension related to socialization and the performance of human
identity [15,16] across the life trajectory [17,18].
Vygotsky’s [19] much quoted phrase regarding the zone of proximal development can here be
extended and explicated by arguing that children and adults are potentially capable of more than
what they can achieve as individuals when they use technological tools in addition to interacting with
more experienced others. Such a socially oriented position highlights the significance of cultural tools
and mediated action: it is the engagement of material and intellectual tools and technologies that
provides a “natural link between action [...] and the cultural, institutional, and historical context in
which action occurs” [20] (p. 24). It is thus through the appropriation of tools and technologies that
human beings get socialized into and positioned as specific types of individuals. A socially oriented
position focuses upon the doing of language and identity (instead of conceptualizing them as a set of
linguistic systems or a range of fixed identity categories [15,16]). Language use or languaging, rather
than language (as a system) per se, highlights an analytical focus on the performative dimension
of communication and social practices. Furthermore, identity is not conceptualized as an attribute
(like handicapness or genderness or nationhood) people carry with them in a hidden or passive fashion.
Rather, it is a process and a product that emerges within social practices. Thus, more recent analytical
concepts like “languaging” and “doing identity” (or “identiting”) point to the performative nature
of human life [14–17,21,22] i.e., as constitutive in action, through the opportunities and barriers that
people have access to and can participate in, in different settings. Individuals dialectically learn to live
up to the identity framings made available in and through institutional settings [22]. Such framings
imply that participation is constituted by individuals collaborating with others, in close symbiosis with
technological tools. Such a position, furthermore, encompasses an orientation towards approaches
where the study of time and space and a focus upon human beings in interaction with one another and
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 4 of 19

cultural tools are salient [2,20,23–27]. This then constitutes dimensions of a sociocultural/dialogical
perspective on communication, performativity, and learning. Combining these analytical positions
implies that policy, learning, and identity cannot be assumed to exist or take place in a social vacuum
or in some neutral fashion.
Thus identity is, in the present study, understood relationally [10,28,29], i.e., as a process rather than
in terms of an authentic essentialist core marked by different layers of functionality. In other words,
the self is considered as being constituted of multiple layers of possible identifications; individuals
“play out” various positions (such as women, immigrants, dis/abled, homosexuals, etc.) within the
framings of both mundane interactions and textual arenas (e.g., in policy or other documents inside
or outside online spaces). None of these positions is more fundamental than any other. They are
negotiated in daily life and in texts and they thus vary across time and space [16,29]. This means
that functionality can be investigated at any given point on an abilities continuum. These theoretical
positions entail a focus on people giving meaning to, interpreting, and creating realities through their
participation in practices that are layered in power relationships, including those that are mediated
by technologies. Such a line of argument allows us to focus upon positions that technologies enable
(or disable) in HE settings. They, furthermore, shed light upon the ways in which individuals and
institutions both use and also account for the roles that technologies, including ICT, play in enabling
(or disabling) access to learning in higher education for all in the 21st century. Such a socially oriented,
theoretical point of departure is very marginal in the research literature that focuses on functionality or
functional dis/ability.

3. Methodological Issues: Approaching the Learning Situation of Functionally Disabled


Students in HE
The empirical data focused upon in this study have been created through collaborative work in
and across parallel projects. Using ethnographic approaches, the following types of materials have
been scrutinized specifically:

1. case study ethnographic data that focuses on two young people from different projects:

• Jonny, who has been followed since middle school at the turn of the century and through the
university level in the 21st century, and
• Olle, who has been followed since the end of the 1990s in high school and through the
university level in the 21st century;
2. websites of the following six universities in Sweden: Gothenburg, Karlstad, Lund, Stockholm,
Uppsala, and Örebro.

Analyzing and juxtaposing this material has allowed us to move across different scales: between
that of lived experience (the case studies dataset) and structural provision of support (the webpages
dataset). Names of individuals used in this study are fictitious and the individual universities focused
upon are not identified in the analysis presented in Section 4.

3.1. Case Studies: Projects JC and RGD


The empirical data pertaining to the two case studies consists of extensive fieldwork notes, video
films from inside and outside classroom settings (This specific data is available from both projects
Jonny Carriers and Riksgymnasiet för döva, National high schools for the deaf (henceforth JC and
RGD) at the pre-university levels. Project JC also has this type of data from the university level.),
open-ended interviews, and analogue and digital images from everyday life outside classrooms
in different projects. Ethnographically framed projects allow for understanding individuals’ lives
across sites and time. Taking the aims of the present study as a point of departure, the analysis has
included revisiting extensive data in projects JC and RGD from the turn of the century and scrutinizing
new data from 2013 to 2015. The two young adults focused on here are differently abled: Jonny is
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 5 of 19

blind and Olle is deaf (both since birth). Olle completed his teacher education at university level
and is employed as a teacher for the deaf. Jonny has a few courses left in a professional university
program and is unemployed. Both are recognized by Swedish society as successful young people.
Being successful, from a societal point of view, includes having moved away from one’s parental home
or other institutional living arrangements and living independently. Participation in HE is a further
dimension of this success.
Meetings with Jonny and Olle have taken place in a number of different arenas and include
different university campuses (each has studied at two different universities), restaurants, barber
shops, excursions in nature, sports venues, their homes, car journeys, etc. We have also communicated
with Jonny and Olle using Swedish and SSL and different ICT technologies, including smartphones,
Skype, and e-mail.

3.2. HE Websites
Using an open-ended ethnographic approach, the websites of six universities were identified
(chosen at random from a total of 16 in the nation-state of Sweden) to constitute a representative
sample. These websites have been studied primarily through an inductive search method whereby
screen-shots and citations of relevance have been noted. The goal here was to gain an understanding
of the overarching types and range of services provided by universities in Sweden in the 21st century
and the ways in which students (and staff) are positioned; the aim has not been an analysis of the
individual university profiles. This means that we refrain from identifying specific universities in the
analysis. The six universities in this dataset are referred to as University A, B, C, D, E, and F.
This dataset was generated stepwise. Firstly, relevant webpages were identified and saved.
Relevance here is framed in terms of links between pages. In other words, the ethnographic nature
of the study did not initially pose specific questions to the data; rather, the content of the pages and
the existing links guided the direction of the initial search. An important issue involved setting the
boundaries of where to look or, in other words, the boundary of the (virtual) field. As is often the case
in (digital) ethnography and anthropology, doing fieldwork entails setting the stage of the study in
terms of what to include and exclude for the purposes of analysis. Since spatial boundaries do not
constitute relevant framings (see also [30]), it was necessary to approach the study of Internet-based
sites of engagement in terms of relevance of content. A fruitful limitation here was the inclusion of
webpages as long as they were part of the domains of the six universities. This means that external
sites that did not belong to the domain of these six universities have not been included in the dataset
or subsequent analysis.
Secondly, the pages included have been scrutinised and emergent themes related to the specific
interests of this study noted at the next level of analysis. Some relevant questions that were posed
at this stage included: Who are marked as differently abled students, and personnel/staff ? In other words,
what types of concepts related to otherness—gender, ethnicity, abilities—are deployed for framing
different groups in this dataset? Furthermore, what support services are (accounted for as being) provided,
including for whom and, more specifically, what are the analogue/digital technologies included in the overall
support specifically framed for the target group “students with disabilities” as well as “personnel with
different abilities”? How is this support delivered and to whom? Thirdly, pictures from the webpages
have been included in the analysis. These semiotic resources have an important bearing on the ways
in which individuals with disabilities and the technologies made available for them are framed at
institutions of HE.

4. Technology, Access, and Participation: A Technification of HE?


Analysis of the university websites, as well as the two case studies, has given rise to four primary
themes that need to be understood in terms of emerging tensions or paradoxes. These themes are
presented in the following sections.
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 6 of 19

4.1. Identification of Differently Positioned People: In/Visibility and Services for Whom?
The analysis highlights an issue concerning identity work (or doing identity [16,31]) in terms
of a double-edged sword. For instance, students need to be identified as disabled (or as gendered,
as a minority, etc.) in order to qualify for attention in the services provided by universities (in the
webpages). This identity work is significant since without a relevant label or category, support services
cannot be made available. Such an issue is also salient in the research enterprise; scholarship is itself
(in large measure) organized within domains such as disability, handicap, etc. [32,33]. In other words,
an identity position (e.g., gender, ethnicity, specific disability label) can be seen to be a prerequisite
for making support available and for conducting research in identity-related areas (compare [34];
see also [35,36]). However, and interestingly, the webpages dataset highlights that students who are
the recipients of the support services at institutions of HE are not always made explicitly visible.
While some HE institutions highlight their support services under the heading “Support for students
with functional disabilities,” others present their support services under the headings “Functional
disabilities and studies” or “Studying with functional disabilities.” Thus, while some mark students
as belonging to a disabled category explicitly (“students with”) others mark functional disabilities in
HE per se (“and studies” or “studying with”). In the latter the students are positioned implicitly and
disabilities are made salient.
Personnel working within institutions of HE (teachers, researchers, management, or administrators)
are, for the most, not targeted as recipients of such support. Access issues with regards to personnel
and the students are highlighted at only one of the six HE institutions in this dataset (University A).
In other words, the university websites do not account for services available for personnel who
are differently abled. This is an interesting finding and worth exploring in future studies with the
intention of throwing light upon the role of technologies in the lives of the differently abled in work
settings. (The first author (Bagga-Gupta)) has been recently awarded a large grant by the Swedish
Research Council (2016–2019), whose aim is to track the life trajectories of differently abled young
people in Sweden. A specific aim of the new project Participation for all? School and post-school
pathways of young people with functional disabilities, (henceforth PAL) is to create an understanding of
this groups’ post-school life opportunities in societal arenas like the work place and institutions of
HE [37]. Data from one of the six HE institutions explicitly highlight a list of functional disabilities
(University B) and in another HE institution a demarcation is presented between gender equality
(Sw: jämställdhet) and diversity equality (Sw: jämlikhet) (University A). The latter institution of
HE explicates these two concepts through the following formulation: “a so-called intersectional
perspective that highlights how different social categories and power relations interact and are
interdependent” (All original Swedish quotations presented in footnotes have been translated by
us:”så kallat intersektionellt perspektiv, som riktar uppmärksamheten mot hur olika sociala kategorier
och maktordningar samverkar och är beroende av varandra”) (University A).
There is a clear intentionality in what the HE institutions propose. For instance, universities
declare the following: “you who are a student with functional disabilities should be able to study with
other students on similar terms” (“du som student med funktionsnedsättning ska kunna studera på lika
villkor som andra studenter”) (University A). A normalizing position is taken as a point of departure
for inclusive agendas; othering takes place in subtle ways. A tension exists in this identification process
in that not all types of different abilities qualify for support. The following formulation on a university
webpage highlights this issue: “You can receive support during your studies at the university if you
have a functional disability that creates a problem during your studies. What support you need
is contingent upon what obstacles your functional disability creates for you during your studies”
(“Om du har en funktionsnedsättning som blir ett hinder i studierna kan du få stöd under din studietid
på universitetet. Vilket stöd du behöver beror på vilket hinder din funktionsnedsättning innebär
för dig i studierna”) (University C). The issue at stake relates to access to the services themselves.
While certain services are available for all students (for instance, talking books or a speech synthesizer),
not all students can avail themselves of all the support services. Students with specific needs (at the
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 7 of 19

HE institutions in this dataset) are required to produce an official document signed by a professional
(medical
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 or equivalent) that clearly identifies a specific permanent disability. The
practitioner 7 ofwebsite
19
of one HE institution (University B) also provides external links for students so that they can avail
document
themselves of asigned by athat
certificate professional
qualifies(medical
them forpractitioner or equivalent)
dyslexia services at the HE thatinstitution.
clearly identifies a
specific
“You canpermanent disability. The
meet coordinators website
at the of one HE
department ofinstitution (University
student affairs at theB)University
also provides for external
a Discussion
links for students so that they can avail themselves of a certificate that qualifies them for dyslexia
about your educational support needs. You must have a certificate about a permanent functional
services at the HE institution.
disability from, for instance, a medical doctor, a psychologist, or a dyslexia investigation. Take the
“You can meet coordinators at the department of student affairs at the University for a
certificate to the
Discussion meeting
about with the coordinator.
your educational support needs. TheYoucoordinator
must have awill then write
certificate aboutaa certificate
permanent with
recommended support services that you should show your contact person at
functional disability from, for instance, a medical doctor, a psychologist, or a dyslexia investigation. your school/department”
(“På Take
Studentavdelningen
the certificate to the påmeeting
universitetet
with thefinns samordnare
coordinator. som du will
The coordinator kanthen träffa föra ett
write samtal om
certificate
ditt behov av pedagogiskt
with recommended stöd. services
support Du måste ha you
that ett intyg
shouldomshowvaraktigyourfunktionsnedsättning
contact person at your från till
school/department”
exempel en läkare, en psykolog (“På Studentavdelningen på universitetet
eller en dyslexiutredning. Ta med finns samordnare
intyget sommed
till mötet du kan träffa
samordnaren.
för ett samtal
Samordnaren skriver omsedan
ditt behov
ett intyg av med
pedagogiskt stöd. Du måste
rekommenderade ha ett intyg
stödåtgärder som du om visarvaraktig
för din
funktionsnedsättning från till exempel en läkare, en psykolog eller
kontaktperson på institutionen”) (University E). Students are also cautioned with the following en dyslexiutredning. Ta med
intyget till mötet med samordnaren. Samordnaren skriver sedan ett intyg med rekommenderade
italicized text: ”You are not covered by this support if you only have a temporary handicap or disability.
stödåtgärder som du visar för din kontaktperson på institutionen”) (University E). Students are also
If you have a temporary handicap or disability and need support, you should turn to your study counsellor
cautioned with the following italicized text: ”You are not covered by this support if you only have a
at your school/department”
temporary (“Har If
handicap or disability. du enhave
you tillfällig skada
a temporary eller sjukdom
handicap såand
or disability omfattas du inte
need support, av det här
you should
stödet. Behöver du tillfälligt stöd ska du istället vända dig till studievägledaren
turn to your study counsellor at your school/department” (“Har du en tillfällig skada eller sjukdom så på din institutionen”)
(University
omfattasC).du Thus
intetemporary
av det härand permanent
stödet. Behöverfunctional abilities
du tillfälligt receive
stöd ska du different typesdig
istället vända of support
till
services at HE institutions
studievägledaren på dinin Sweden. Such
institutionen”) institutional
(University arrangements
C). Thus temporary and in themselves (co)construct
permanent functional
abilities
identity receivefor
positions different types of support
the supported students. services at HE institutions in Sweden. Such institutional
Other dimensions related to the identificationpositions
arrangements in themselves (co)construct identity for the positioned
of differently supported students.
students (or personnel)
Other dimensions related to the identification
that make visible (but also invisible) group identity positions emerge in theof differently positioned students (or personnel)
analysis. For instance,
that make visible (but also invisible) group identity positions emerge in the analysis. For instance, as
as Figure 1 illustrates, general diffuse pictures—in tandem with technology—are presented on HE
Figure 1 illustrates, general diffuse pictures—in tandem with technology—are presented on HE
support services’ webpages. While the text that is presented on the page (close to Figure 1) targets
support services’ webpages. While the text that is presented on the page (close to Figure 1) targets
students withwith
students functional
functionaldisabilities,
disabilities,the thepicture
picture in itselfhighlights
in itself highlights knowledge
knowledge (the(the books),
books), whichwhich
is is
symbolically
symbolically framed
framed andandkept
keptinin place
placeby byaapair
pair of technologicaldevices
of technological devices (headphones).
(headphones). The The text that
text that
accompanies
accompanies thisthis
picture does
picture does notnotclarify
clarifywhether
whether thisthisrepresents
representsa cognitive
a cognitive viewview of knowledge
of knowledge or or
more simply constitutes a symbol for reading books or something else: ”You who are a student and
more simply constitutes a symbol for reading books or something else: ”You who are a student and
have have a reading
a reading disorder
disorder on account
on account of dyslexia,
of dyslexia, visualdisability,
visual disability,or orother
other functional
functional disability
disabilityhavehave the
right the right to download
to download talking talking
books”books” (“Du som (“Duärsom är student
student och harochen har en läsnedsättning
läsnedsättning på grund
på grund av
av dyslexi,
dyslexi, synskada eller annan funktionsnedsättning har rätt att
synskada eller annan funktionsnedsättning har rätt att ladda ner talböcker”) (University D).ladda ner talböcker”) (University D).

Figure1.1.Technological
Figure supportfor
Technological support forwhom?
whom?

Another
Another dimension
dimension thatthat emerges
emerges fromfrom the analysis
the analysis of representation
of the the representation of young
of young adults
adults targeted
targeted for support in various spaces inside and outside HE classrooms is the invisibility of
for support in various spaces inside and outside HE classrooms is the invisibility of disability markers.
disability markers. Figure 2a,b illustrate this issue in sets of pictorial representations on the support
Figure 2a,b illustrate this issue in sets of pictorial representations on the support services’ webpages of
services’ webpages of HE institutions in our dataset.
HE institutions in our dataset.
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 8 of 19
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 8 of 19

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 2.
2. (a)
(a) Support
Support services
services for
for all
all students?
students? (b)
(b) Support
Support services
services for
for all
all students?
students?

No specific functionality related to abilities (or lack thereof) that the services support can be
No specific functionality related to abilities (or lack thereof) that the services support can be
discerned in the pictures in Figure 2a,b. These pictures display mainstream common practices within
discerned in the pictures in Figure 2a,b. These pictures display mainstream common practices within
HE institutions in Sweden: sitting in a lecture space, working on a PC, social activities, etc. No
HE institutions in Sweden: sitting in a lecture space, working on a PC, social activities, etc. No semiotic
semiotic resources mark the students (or individuals) in the pictures as differently abled. The textual
resources mark the students (or individuals) in the pictures as differently abled. The textual information
information next to these pictures, however, highlights the kind of support services that are offered
next to these pictures, however, highlights the kind of support services that are offered within HE and
within HE and this indirectly defines the kind of special needs and support services that specific
this indirectly defines the kind of special needs and support services that specific students can access
students can access during their studies.
during their studies.
Another dimension relates to how specific technological support services are highlighted,
Another dimension relates to how specific technological support services are highlighted,
including the flagging of the fact that the services are difficult to procure. For instance, talking books
including the flagging of the fact that the services are difficult to procure. For instance, talking
are made available by a couple of HE institutions in the dataset, with the coupled warning that they
books are made available by a couple of HE institutions in the dataset, with the coupled warning
take a long time to produce, or that deaf and hard-of-hearing students are entitled to SSL
that they take a long time to produce, or that deaf and hard-of-hearing students are entitled to SSL
interpreters, but that “there is a big shortage of them” (University D).
interpreters, but that “there is a big shortage of them” (University D).
The issues mentioned so far can also be scrutinized from the vantage point of Jonny’s and Olle’s
The issues mentioned so far can also be scrutinized from the vantage point of Jonny’s and Olle’s
experiences of support services at the institutions of HE where they have been members. Olle’s
experiences of support services at the institutions of HE where they have been members. Olle’s access
access to SSL–Swedish interpreters during his studies at two universities differed substantially:
to SSL–Swedish interpreters during his studies at two universities differed substantially: while he had
while he had access to a pool of interpreters employed by one university, his access to
access to a pool of interpreters employed by one university, his access to communication at lectures and
communication at lectures and seminars at the second HE institution was strictly regulated by
seminars at the second HE institution was strictly regulated by careful planning of courses in a string
careful planning of courses in a string of administrative meetings with university support staff. Two
of administrative meetings with university support staff. Two issues are significant here. The support
issues are significant here. The support staff at both universities where Olle has studied are not users
staff
of at both
SSL. This universities where Olle has
means that interpreters studied are
are required not users
to process of SSL.
and plan This
Olle’smeans that interpreters
HE studies. Here it is
are required to process and plan Olle’s HE studies. Here it is Olle’s disability that
Olle’s disability that is marked, not the support staff’s lack of abilities to use and communicate is marked, not the
in
support staff’s lack of abilities to use and communicate in SSL. The onus is on the differently
SSL. The onus is on the differently abled student to identify his or her disabilities, apply for support, abled
student
and plantohis
identify
or her his or her disabilities,
studies—and apply
all this well in for support, and plan his or her studies—and all this
advance.
well in advance.
A second issue relates to the formalistic nature of support that is made available at universities
A second
and the complex, issue relates
fluid to the
nature offormalistic
education nature
at the of
HEsupport
level. Forthatinstance,
is made available
Jonny has ataccess
universities and
to course
the complex, fluid nature of education at the HE level. For instance, Jonny has
literature in the form of digitized talking books, but his experience of the support services access to course literature
administration, including the format in which the talking books are made available to him (CDs
rather than digital files) creates issues of accessibility. Jonny’s blindness means that physical CDs are
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 9 of 19

in the form of digitized talking books, but his experience of the support services administration,
including the format in which the talking books are made available to him (CDs rather than digital
files) creates issues of accessibility. Jonny’s blindness means that physical CDs are not easy to sort out
and identify. He, early in his student career, identified external resource persons (two blind staff at
a national agency) whom he regularly approaches and who promptly process his course literature
into digitized files via the Internet—a format and routine that provide him access to materials in an
easy and reliable manner. This type of mismatch between the needs of students within HE and the
services that are provided can also be noted in the issues that Olle experienced, particularly before and
after lectures and seminars and during the pauses between them. Access to SSL interpreters was made
available during the formal lecture and seminar slots through interpreters who were present physically.
Olle did not have access to interpreters during coffee breaks and lunch slots between lectures and
seminars and often ate or sat alone, while the rest of his classmates sat together. Here digitally
mediated interpretation services via, for instance, video phones (Sw: bild-telefoni; see [38–40]) or
interpreter-in-the-pocket (Sw: tolk-i-fickan) services are not available, nor are they considered viable
options that could support accessibility.
Differently abled students appear to be left to their own devices to participate in HE through
access that is organized from an institutional functionally-abled vantage point. While note-taking facilities
feature among the list of services provided by the majority of HE institutions in our dataset, neither
Jonny nor Olle had access to this support during their HE studies at four different university campuses
in the nation-state of Sweden. This constitutes an important dimension of access-in-policy that does not
necessarily translate to access-in-everyday-life for Jonny and Olle.

4.2. Range of Services and Support Provided by HE Institutions


A rich and complex picture of a range of support services emerges from the analysis of the
university websites, enhanced by the in-depth analysis of the two case studies. HE institutions in
Sweden in the 21st century offer students in general, and students with functional disabilities in
particular, a large range of support services. However, as we have already seen (and will see further),
this support is steered top-down, gets regulated in various ways, and is not always available for
differently abled students. General support for students is presented in the webpages dataset based
upon the Swedish Discrimination Law. For instance, the following is a formulation that is similarly
framed at the six HE institutions in our webpages dataset: “The university’s work for equality means
that no one will be discriminated or should need to experience mistreatment on the grounds of
gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression, ethnic allegiance, religion or faith, functional
disability, sexual orientation, or age. This is regulated in the Discrimination Law” (“Universitets arbete
för lika villkor innebär att ingen ska bli diskriminerad eller behöva uppleva sig trakasserad på grund
av kön, könsidentitet och/eller köns uttryck, etnisk tillhörighet, religion eller annan trosuppfattning,
funktionsnedsättning, sexuell läggning eller ålder. Detta regleras i Diskrimineringslagen”) (University C).
All the institutions in this dataset have local regulations that operationalize the national law. We can
note here that while support for students with disabilities is spelled out explicitly, other student
categories are described in general terms (if at all). One university differentiates support for students
up to the Master’s level and those who are pursuing doctoral studies (University C). Furthermore,
two universities in the dataset explicate a policy for students who have young children.
Technologies currently play a key role in both the dissemination of information vis-à-vis the
available support (via internet pages, university digital platforms, etc.) and the digital nature of
a large part of the support that is made available. Table 1 presents an overview of the primary
types of institutional support and services that are made available for differently abled students
at universities in terms of different types of assistive and disruptive technologies. The types and
dimensions of assistive and disruptive services are, here, discussed in terms of human technologies,
digital technologies, analogue technologies, physical/spatial technologies, mobility technologies,
and temporal technologies (compare above and [39,40]). Human technologies include a range of
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 10 of 19

support services that are delivered by an individual who assists students with a variety of tasks.
Digital technologies include software and hardware that students can either access or download
onto their own computers. These technologies are also available at university campuses in specially
designated spaces like reading studios or computer rooms. Analogue technologies consist primarily
of hard copies of course literature translated into Braille. The physical rooms on campuses where
students can potentially avail themselves of software and hardware are here framed in terms of spatial
technologies, while mobility technologies include GPS and wheel chairs. Finally, temporal aspects of
extension of time for examinations or extra time for supervision where SSL interpreters are deployed
are here included within temporal technologies. While boundaries between the identified support
(i.e., human, analogue, and digital) cannot be seen as fixed and demarcated, the typology that has
emerged (and is presented in Table 1) allows us to understand the ways in which support and assistance
get framed. Such a typology also illustrates how HE institutions account for their support and services
(middle column). This includes the framing of support as something that needs to be clearly presented
and delivered; this does not necessarily point to the specific target groups related to the kind of
technology or assistance that is made available. Table 1 also juxtaposes Jonny’s and Olle’s accounts
of the types of support services they have made use of during their studies at different universities
(right-hand column).

Table 1. Typology of range of institutional support and services, as accounted for in the webpages and
case studies datasets.

Typology of Support & Examples of Institutional Accounts of Jonny‘s & Olle‘s Accounts of
Services Support & Services Support & Service Use
Note taking, Thesis supervision, Mentor support,
SSL–Swedish interpreters, some
Human support Student/colleague support, Writing interpreter,
assistance support (initially)
SSL interpreter, Language supervision, Assistant
Course literature (talking books) by MTM
(Myndigheten för Tillängliga Medier) (Authority
for accessible media), Speech synthesizer,
Spelling programs (available both online and in
Digital support Course literature
the reading studios on Campus), Hearing Loop,
Microphones, Reading television (Sw: läs-tv),
also called enlarging camera
(Sw: förstoringskamera)
Course literature (Braille) by MTM
Analogue support (Myndigheten för Tillängliga Medier) Course literature
(Authority for accessible media)
Reading studio or resource room (on campus),
Spelling programs (available both online and in
the reading studios/resource rooms on Campus),
Physical/spatial support
Rest room (on Campus), Support for studies
abroad, Lecture halls, Height adjustable
working tables
Maps on smartphones, Wheelchairs,
Mobility support
Digitized maps
Examination (extended time), Extended time for
supervision when SSL interpreters are engaged,
Temporal support
Extended time for library loans, Adapted
economic support (for extended time periods)

Figure 3 illustrates the organization of support technologies in a reading studio or resource room
at a university in the dataset. The digital support and spatial/physical support here includes a printer,
scanner, computer, screen, enlarging camera, CD writer/reader, etc. The information regarding such
digital and spatial support is not augmented by information on how (or whether) the studios/rooms
are used by specific groups of students. Jonny and Olle report that they have never made use of
such spatial arrangements at their universities. This raises another dimension related to access issues:
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 11 of 19

Informatics 2016, 3, 21 11 of 19
technologies that are made available at HE institutions are not used by students who are differently
abled
areindifferently
our dataset.
abledThe webpages
in our do not
dataset. The (as wedo
webpages have
not already seen)
(as we have always
already specify
seen) the
always kinds of
specify
functional
the kindsabilities or the abilities
of functional specific or
groups that are
the specific targeted
groups fortargeted
that are the support.
for the support.

Figure 3. Technology-rich reading studio at University F.


Figure 3. Technology-rich reading studio at University F.

Students are expected to be aware of their needs as well as the type(s) of support that they can
Students
access. Thisare expected to
information is be
madeaware of their
available needs as
digitally. wellHE
Many as the type(s) of
institutions support
clearly that they
highlight that can
access. Thiswith
students information
functionalisdisabilities
made available
need to digitally. Manyresponsibility
take substantial HE institutions clearly
for their highlightin that
participation
HE. Such
students withinformation, targeted towards
functional disabilities need to differently abled students,
take substantial is generally
responsibility made participation
for their available
under headings like “What can you do yourself?” This is formulated
in HE. Such information, targeted towards differently abled students, is generally made available by (three) HE institutions as
follows: “Your capacity to take your own responsibility and to formulate
under headings like “What can you do yourself?” This is formulated by (three) HE institutions as your needs in the study
situation
follows: “Yourconstitutes
capacityantoimportant
take your characteristic for you toand
own responsibility succeed in your studies”
to formulate your needs(“Din in förmåga
the study
att ta eget ansvar och att formulera dina behov i studiesituationen är en viktig egenskap för att du
situation constitutes an important characteristic for you to succeed in your studies” (“Din förmåga
ska lyckas i dina studier”.) (University D). Students are explicitly requested to get in touch with the
att ta eget ansvar och att formulera dina behov i studiesituationen är en viktig egenskap för att du
institution well in advance. For instance, the following is presented under the title “Make contact
ska lyckas i dina studier”.) (University D). Students are explicitly requested to get in touch with the
well in advance” on the first page that is titled “studying with disabilities”: “If you have special
institution
needs, youwellshould
in advance. For instance,
get in contact with the theuniversity
followingcoordinator
is presented forunder
studentsthe title
with“Make
functionalcontact
welldisabilities,
in advance” when you register yourself for studying at our university. You should also, well aheadspecial
on the first page that is titled “studying with disabilities”: “If you have of
theyou
needs, startshould
of your getstudies,
in contact with
get in touchthewith
university coordinator for
the school/department students
where withtofunctional
you plan disabilities,
study, in order to
when you
plan register
your studies yourself
with the forstudy
studying at ourand
counsellors teachers”You
university. should also, har
(“Universitetet wellenahead of the start
samordnare för of
yourstudenter get infunktionsnedsättning,
studies, med touch with the school/department
som du bör ta kontakt wheremedyou plan to study,
i samband in ordertill
med anmälan tostudier
plan your
om du
studies withär the
i behov
studyav counsellors
särskilt stöd.andDu bör också i god
teachers” tid före studiestarten
(“Universitetet kontakta denför
har en samordnare institution
studenter därmed
du tänker studera, som
funktionsnedsättning, för att
du börplanera dina med
ta kontakt studier tillsammans
i samband med studievägledare
med anmälan till studier om ochdulärare”)
är i behov
(University F, emphasis added). These types of formulations highlight that
av särskilt stöd. Du bör också i god tid före studiestarten kontakta den institution där du tänker studera, the future student is
encouraged to get in touch with the person or department in charge of “students with disabilities” in
för att planera dina studier tillsammans med studievägledare och lärare”) (University F, emphasis
order to set up a study plan with the teachers and other supervisors at the department where the
added). These types of formulations highlight that the future student is encouraged to get in touch
student has been enrolled. The modal verb “should” (Sw: bör) indexes a locus of responsibility
with the person or department in charge of “students with disabilities” in order to set up a study
related to the imperative in the title (do it). The text addresses future students rather than those who
planare
with the teachers
already registered andandotheraresupervisors
studying atatthe theuniversity.
department Beingwhere the student
sighted or visuallyhas been
abled enrolled.
is a
The precondition
modal verb for “should”
accessing such a digital webpage. Visually impaired people cannot reach the link in
(Sw: bör) indexes a locus of responsibility related to the imperative
the title
unless(do it).receive
they The text addresses
assistance from future
another students
person rather
who is than those
visually who
abled or are
fromalready
software registered
tools that and
are studying
can convert attextual
the university. Being sighted
semiotic resources to speech.or visually abled is a precondition for accessing such
a digital Jonny
webpage. Visually
and Olle impaired people and
are technology-savvy cannot reach the
repeatedly link in
stated unless
their they receive with
discussions assistance
us thatfrom
technology
another person frees
who them from the
is visually constraints
abled of dependency
or from software on functionally
tools that can convertabledtextual human
semioticbeings in
resources
different situations inside and outside HE settings:
to speech.
- Jonny and Olle
“Correct are technology-savvy
technologies and repeatedly
are much more valuable stated
as compared in assistant”
to an their discussions with us that
(Jonny, 2014).
technology
- frees them
“Technology frommethe
makes constraints
independent andof equal
dependency
to seeingon functionally
people” abled human beings in
(Jonny, 2015).
different
- situations inside
“Technology and
like 3G andoutside HE settings:
the Internet have revolutionized my life. This is particularly true in
my private life” (Olle, 2014).
- “Correct technologies are much more valuable as compared to an assistant” (Jonny, 2014).
- “Technology makes me independent and equal to seeing people” (Jonny, 2015).
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 12 of 19

- “Technology like 3G and the Internet have revolutionized my life. This is particularly true in my
private life” (Olle, 2014).

The support coordinators that Jonny and Olle have had (at the four universities where they have
been students) have been supportive to different degrees. The type of support that the coordinators
have provided have included: reading information aloud (for Jonny) from websites, from notice
boards, or from printed pamphlets; making contact with a second university where Jonny was going to
transfer; explaining the physical layout of the campus; contacting the interpretation services; ringing
the study coordinators or teachers at the school/department where Jonny or Olle were studying;
identifying where one could get one’s log-in information in order to access relevant home pages,
the intranet, student e-mails, etc. Jonny and Olle turned to us researchers for similar support both
during and after our project fieldwork period. Jonny’s and Olle’s parents have also made physical
trips to the university campuses to discuss their grown-up children’s study situation.

4.3. Making Use of Support and Services during HE Studies


As the analysis so far highlights, differently abled students are required to be very active and
creative (as compared to the situation for functionally abled students) in order to access services
and participate in their own HE. Some of the salient issues highlighted in the analysis presented
so far, and of relevance for the third overarching theme that has emerged in this study, include the
following: (i) differently abled students need to be competent in knowing and assessing the degree
of their own functional abilities; (ii) these students are held responsible for providing a document
that certifies their status as disabled and as being in need of specific support; and (iii) these students
are held responsible for identifying the correct assistance and contacting their institution of HE well
in advance. Furthermore, Jonny and Olle did not appear to make much use of digital/analogue,
physical/spatial/mobility, or temporal technologies that are available at the four universities where
they have studied (see Table 1). As highlighted under the previous analytical theme, students have the
opportunity to download some software (e.g., speech synthesizer) themselves and store such resources
on their computers. Human support (what Holmström & Bagga-Gupta [40] call “communicative-link”
technologies) is, on the other hand, something Jonny and Olle regularly use. Jonny reports that he uses
two specific ICT tools extensively in his everyday life inside as well as outside the university—iPhone 5
and Pronto (Pronto is an advanced note-taking tool that has a range of digital features e.g., a calendar,
Internet, talking books, music streaming, etc.). Neither of these is provided to him by the HE
institutions where he has studied. Olle makes use of an Android smartphone as well as an iPad
extensively in his everyday life inside and outside the university (including his workplace). Neither
of these technologies was provided to him by the two universities he studied at or by his current
employer. Knowledge about what one requires, irrespective of a student’s level of functionality, shapes
participation in HE. Here issues of accessibility, participation, and interaction are significant in that
they potentially enable (and disable) students’ possibilities to succeed with their studies [41].
Human support plays a decisive role for Jonny—both as far as his studies are concerned and in
his private life. For instance, Jonny turns to two blind personnel at an authority outside the university
support system when he requires assistance (e.g., to get his course literature accessible as digitized
speech files) and socializes with his previous assistants during his free time. Olle requires interpreters
not only in order to access the oral communication during lectures and seminars, but also to plan
his studies with the university support staff. Both Jonny and Olle turn to their parents for assistance
(and, during and after our fieldwork, also to us) to negotiate services with the university support
staff. This implies that accessing the support at universities is not a straightforward process for
differently abled students and, furthermore, they do not make use of all the support services provided.
For instance, and as has been noted above, neither Jonny nor Olle made use of physical/spatial
technologies at their universities. The following issues can also be raised given the mismatch that has
been noted between the support services that institutions of HE account for and the non-use of these by
Jonny and Olle: Can differently abled students access digital and other tools and technologies during
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 13 of 19

their lectures and seminars or are they required to leave their mainstream classroom settings in order
to make use of the support services that are provided? What mobile technological tools do (they have
access to within HE (for instance, interpreter-in-the-pocket)? Are differently abled students given
opportunities to discuss and present feedback regarding their experiences of inclusion/exclusion and
technologies or tools they consider appropriate for their needs during the course of their HE studies?
Jonny and Olle, for instance, report that their preferences for support technologies were never solicited
during their HE studies. Some of the technologies (smartphones, Pronto, etc.) that Jonny and Olle use
extensively in order to participate in the institutional life of HE were not made available to them by
their universities. While smartphones constitute regular tools that all students use inside and outside
their studies at HE institutions in Sweden, these tools play a crucial function in Jonny’s and Olle’s
lives. Technologies like Pronto are specific tools that support the lives of people who are functionally
different. The types of issues raised from our analysis under this theme constitute dimensions that
require further scrutiny. (We intend to follow up the findings from this study in our new Swedish
Research Council project PAL, “Participation for all? School and post-school pathways for young adults with
functional disabilities” (2016–2019; www.ju.se/ccd/pal).)

4.4. Support for Accessing Support and Issues of Stigma


Technologies, including ICT, are commonly accounted for in the webpages dataset in terms
of a facilitator for information and access to content. There seems to be a dual approach to how
technologies are offered by the HE institutions as support: it is, as we have seen above, made available
inside physical spaces (like resource rooms or reading studios), and it is also made available online,
via the students’ university logins. While Jonny and Olle access information and content in a number
of different ways (via websites, personal contacts, interpreters, previous assistants), their primary
interaction with technologies relates to navigation (mobility, for instance), as well as communication
with others (e.g., through the deployment of 3G or 4G, chat, mails, sms, etc.), for instance, students,
teachers, assistants, interpreters, and us researchers.
Differently abled students’ positions as university students are framed in terms of alternative
paths of participation in the activities of their university communities. These communities are located
both online and offline and accessibility/participation comprises both physical and digital concerns.
For instance, this is framed in HE institutions as follows:
Physical issue: “At University E we work towards making our physical spaces accessible”
(“Vid University E arbetar vi för att lokalerna ska vara tillgängliga”).
Digital issue: “Contact the university library if you need your course literature as talking books.
There you will get assistance to apply for a downloadable account with the Authority for accessible
media (MTM). You can download and read your talking books in the format that is suitable for
you—on the computer, on your mobile or iPad—when you receive your account details” (“Behöver
du din kurslitteratur som talbok, vänd dig till universitetsbiblioteket. Där får du hjälp med att
ansöka om ett nedladdningskonto hos Myndigheten för tillgängliga medier (MTM). När du fått dina
inloggningsuppgifter kan du själv ladda ned och läsa talböcker på det sätt som passar dig bäst: i datorn,
mobilen och läsplattan”) (University E).
A mismatch between differently abled students’ use of technologies to access, navigate, and
participate in HE institutions on the one hand, and the support services offered at universities on the
other, can be understood in terms of a policy driven 9-to-5 institutional view of support services. A 9-to-5
view can be illustrated by interpreter support that is scheduled for deaf students during lectures and
seminars and the absence of similar support for deaf students during lunch and other breaks. Another
example of a 9-to-5 institutional view of support services that does not always match students’ needs
can be illustrated by institutional work schedules. For instance, a disability coordinator suggested
one late spring that issues that Jonny was facing vis-à-vis his studies could be resolved by the new
coordinator who was going to replace her after the summer break, i.e., in early autumn. Furthermore,
support for differently abled students seems to be non-existent if and when they participate in distance
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 14 of 19

courses, that is, when they study in online asynchronous or synchronous courses. These examples
together highlight both the mismatch between services and students’ support needs and the HE
institutions’ clear message that students must take responsibility for their own studies.
Jonny and Olle spent a large part of their time at university trying to keep up to date with regards
to the administration pertaining to their studies. Changes in lecture venues or seminar timetables,
or changes in assignments or last-minute additions to reading materials presented significant challenges
for them. Some faculty members seemed surprised when they were notified that Jonny or Olle missed
information that had been previously presented. A faculty member expressed surprise (to us) when
he learned that Jonny had missed important information related to a re-scheduling of a seminar;
this faculty member (who is aware of the fact that Jonny is blind), informed us: “I actually remember
writing the information on the white board during the last seminar!” Such examples illustrate the
gap between well-meaning intentions of staff, institutions, and policies and the complex situation of
students who are differently abled [30].
The types of issues highlighted above have also been identified in the research literature.
For instance, Phillips et al. [41] have focused upon faculty experiences of providing online courses in
relation to the kinds of accommodations (or non- or problematic accommodations) that are made for
differently abled students. Their findings highlight that faculty are generally unaware of how they
should accommodate their online teaching to the situation of differently abled students. An implication
of such findings is that there is a need for clarity and more finely tuned support for supporting faculty in
their online instructional work and to encourage differently abled students to discuss accommodation
needs early during their studies. Phillips et al. [41] also discuss this issue in relation to the degree
of comfort students feel when they are required to include themselves in what can be framed as
a stigmatised position of “students with disabilities.” The issue of stigmatization is also raised by
Trammel [42] and Martin [43]. A literature review presented by Trammel highlights differently abled
students’ needs in different contexts:
“The semantics of disability actually constitute the primary battleground for equal access in both
Western and non-Western countries. Since cultural definitions remain the predominant variable within
the social model of disability, the language used to debate disability constitutes the forum where
social otherness and understanding are actually negotiated. Because the word ‘disability’ itself is so
charged with manifold meanings and threatening stereotypes, requiring students to visit an ’Office for
Disability Support’ as a first step in getting accommodations forces a preliminary label on them before
the accommodation process can even begin to unfold” [42] (p. 24).
Both Jonny and Olle seem to be acutely aware of the double-edged sword related to accessing
institutional support that enables their participation in the world of HE. They often articulate their
dissatisfaction with various dimensions of the support that is provided but also highlight how
technologies make them equal to the functionally abled students they have studied with.

5. A Higher Education for All? Overarching Reflections


Integration, inclusion, and equity constitute fundamental dimensions of democracy in post-World
War II societies and their institutions. The themes that we have identified through the juxtaposition of
analysis of ethnographically framed materials in the study presented in this paper make visible the
work that institutions and their members do. The analysis has included the organization of time and
space and the use of a range of technologies in the institutional settings of HE against the backdrop
of institutions’ and individuals’ accountings of support services that are provided and deployed in
such settings.
The analysis of the webpages dataset shows the ways in which access and its relationship to
functional abilities are framed. In other words, the resources that HE institutions account for illustrate
intentions from a national and local regulatory perspective (i.e., the Swedish Discrimination Law
and local policy documents that universities report they follow). This contrasts with what appears
to be relevant for specific student populations, an issue illustrated through our case study dataset of
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 15 of 19

two differently abled students—Jonny and Olle. The issue of individual responsibility and commitment
to one’s own inclusion—an issue that has emerged in this study—constitutes a theme that is emerging
in the research literature. This is salient specifically in relation to the proactive focus that is deemed
necessary in order to include all students; this takes its point of departure in the needs of individuals,
rather than general regulations and policies. This issue is central during the transition from high
school to higher education. All prospective students cannot access the information offered via online
resources in a straightforward manner, since webpages do not always highlight specific access points
for a particular functional dis/ability. For instance, Jonny (initially at least) has relied on personal
contacts to ascertain where to access digital information vis-à-vis the support services offered by the
universities where he studied. A counterpoint here is the availability of general information regarding
HE in SSL on some university webpages; interestingly, though, the specific support information for
deaf or hard-of-hearing students is not made available in SSL. This means that an inability to see,
hear, or read becomes a stumbling block in the attempt to access entry points to relevant information
regarding support services. Thus students who are blind or deaf or have reading challenges need support
to reach the support that is made available for them within the context of HE. Horst and Miller [44]
frame these types of issues in terms of the incapability of society to offer technologies that meet the
needs of differently abled people, or how “the battles that were fought for ramps, elevators, Braille
signage and visual signal for the hearing impaired, to name a few [ . . . ] are now being extended to the
digital media world” [44] (p. 103, our emphasis).
Life-long learning is seen as a key dimension in the education for all movement [34]. Until high
school level, Jonny and Olle were provided with support services in mainstream (Jonny) and segregated
(Olle) schools. While support is abundant in institutional segregated settings until the high school
level, ethnographically framed research suggests that differently abled pupils in these mainstream
school settings need to be active and creative in order to participate in educational activities [9,13].
Within HE, too, as our analysis in this paper indicates, support for differently abled students requires
that the latter are active and responsible for their own access to participation. In other words, a central
tension that has emerged in this multi-scalar analysis relates to the communicative and navigatory
support that technologies enable for differently abled students on the one hand, and the support
services regulated and accounted for by society generally and by institutions like HE in particular on
the other hand. Our analysis of the case study dataset illustrates that Jonny and Olle have (different)
advanced competencies and experiences that are relevant for navigating a range of sophisticated
technologies, for instance, accessing information, getting work done, finding their way across physical
spaces, etc. This is in stark contrast to both the enormous institutional support they have received up
to the high school level and the technologically infused (ir)relevant and difficult-to-access support
that their universities make available for students like them. The latter appears to be structured by
a normalizing agenda where the focus is on solving problems of inclusion (in universalistic terms).
Individuals who are differently abled are accorded marginal positions in the planning of support
services that are made available for them. Furthermore, input from them (regarding their experiences)
is not solicited during the course of their university studies. There exists a risk that support therefore
gets reduced to a display of a policy of inclusion. Support thus seems to be disconnected from the world of
the target group that it aims to support within HE institutions (in Sweden). Some of our previous and
more recent meta-analysis of peer-reviewed research literature has covered a wide range of different
functionalities including issues related to mobility and sensory and learning disabilities [45–48].
The primary focus in the literature consulted for one of our ongoing meta-analysis that covers the
period 2005–2015 is on the types of support provided to differently abled students and staff within
HE institutions [48]. The preliminary analysis of this ongoing work suggests that specific disabilities
and their relationships to accessibility issues are not focused on or discussed in recent scholarship.
While this take-home message is important, the point that we wish to emphasize here is the near
total absence of scholarship in which differently abled students’ and personnel’s participation and
use of technologies are studied in situ across time and space in HE institutional settings. This means,
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 16 of 19

among other things, that research where individuals or institutions account for different dimensions
(for instance, in interview- or survey-based studies) clearly dominates this area of knowledge
production. In other words, there is a domination of narrative accounts and survey studies that
explicitly aims to improve the situation of differently abled students within HE. There exists a paucity
of scholarship that takes a socially oriented position as a point of departure (see Section 2 above).
Our intensive interviews with Jonny and Olle also constitute data with a narrative dimension.
From a performative, socially oriented analytical position, and in line with what we have argued in
Section 2, this type of data has specific limitations. Our case study materials comprise, in addition
to interviews, a larger range of data. Bringing this data into conversation with the analysis of the
webpages dataset has been deemed necessary in order to make a more general claim about HE policies
of inclusion in relation to technology or individuals’ experiences of university support provision.
This paper thus throws light upon (i) the ways in which individuals and institutions together account
for the roles that technologies, including ICT, play in enabling (or disabling) inclusion, transitions,
and participation for learning in HE; as well as (ii) the in situ nature of how these processes play
out in everyday life situations. The study thus builds upon a multi-scalar approach that includes
drawing upon an ethnographic tradition for generating a variety of data that have been juxtaposed and
analysed in parallel. The creation and parallel analysis of two datasets has allowed for the emergence
of key themes and it has been possible to make visible some complex dimensions of participation of
differently abled students and the role that technology plays in their lives inside (and also outside)
HE settings.
Furthermore, the study presented in this paper adds a critical dimension to the investigation of
the role that technologies, including ICT, play in higher education for individuals who are differently
abled and who constitute a variation on a continuum of capabilities. This is particularly the case with
regards to issues of identity work and accessibility to institutionally framed activities in HE settings.
For example, our analysis shows how institutional agendas are significant dimensions of identity
work. Metaphorically, one could say that while Jonny and Olle live 24/7 lives as students within
HE, institutional support services at universities build upon a 9-to-5 temporal framework. Thus,
the analysis of the webpages dataset shows that while laws and regulations regarding institutional
responsibilities are implemented within HE, there exists a tension in that differently abled university
students must shoulder significant responsibility for their own inclusion within HE. Similarly, the
analysis of the case studies highlights a tension between the support offered to differently abled
students by institutions of HE as compared to their everyday lives and languaging, i.e., what transpires
in the classroom, among students and instructors. For instance, there exists a general understanding
of what an individual who is blind is able to do when it comes to understanding instructions and
assignments. A blind individual can understand oral instructions but is unable to visually access, i.e.,
read the instructions that a teacher writes on the classroom whiteboard. The analysis of the case studies
furthermore highlights the fact that differently abled students regularly engage their able-bodied
relatives and acquaintances (and us) in order to make their voices heard. Such complexities need to
be made visible, as well as studied further. This could include, for instance, engaging members from
differently abled students in de facto networks during ethnographic fieldwork, with the intention of
contributing to a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of differently abled members’ life spheres
and trajectories in Sweden (and elsewhere) in the 21st century. Given that transitions to adulthood
(at least in Sweden) necessitate a break from support that was previously forthcoming from parents,
this issue has wider implications for differently abled young people’s position in society.
Such issues can be contrasted with the shift in trajectories and transitions vis-à-vis the support
that society provides for differently abled pupils up to the high school level. Once they reach HE,
students like Jonny and Olle need to navigate the institutional information that is provided primarily
in written form—both digitally and in analogue texts, rather than in modalities such as Braille and SSL.
Paradoxically, then, there exist important gaps in how routine information is made available to students.
At the same time, universities have high expectations of differently abled students, requiring them to
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 17 of 19

take responsibility for their own inclusion in institutional settings. The formal routines of HE reinforce
categorical labels, and not only cement a disability-framed Othering discourse, but also stigmatize
differently abled students (see also [40]). Differently abled students are furthermore required to
provide proof of the permanent nature of their disability in order to access any type of support. One can
also ask why these high expectations made of functionally disabled students are not the same for
all students. Such a line of thought builds on the premise that a well-planned course, with lecture slides
provided in advance and/or afterwards, accessibility of content through several modalities, clarity
in the explanations/instructions, etc. is key within HE for all courses for all students, independent
of their position on a continuum of functional ability. It thus, we argue, becomes relevant to put the
spotlight on the nature of disabling and enabling technologies for learning (rather than on differently
abled individuals) in higher education that claims and aims to be inclusive. Students who agree to
take advantage of these support services become automatically stigmatized and thereby marginalized.
The study presented in this paper highlights the need for an educational culture that increases openness
and accessibility for all students irrespective of their position on an ability continuum across time and
space. Design guidelines envisaged to open up education for all students, rather than for specific
groups, could be a viable strategy for policy planning within HE.

Author Contributions: Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta conceived and designed the fieldwork in the different projects
from which data have been drawn for analysis in this paper. She conducted fieldwork for all the projects. In project
JC, she closely collaborated with Ylva Winther during the two phases of the project. Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta also
conceived of and designed the work division and the organization of the study presented in this paper. This was
done in close collaboration with Giulia Messina Dahlberg and Ylva Winther. Each author participated in the
analysis, both of the separate datasets as well as in joint data sessions. While Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta had overall
responsibility for the writing of this study, all three authors contributed drafts that emerged from the analysis.
Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta, Giulia Messina Dahlberg, and Ylva Winther were responsible for generating the webpages
dataset used in this study. All three authors contributed substantially to the work reported in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CI Cochlear Implants
GPS Global Positions System
HE Higher Education
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
LMS Learning Management System
MOOC Massive Online Open Course
MTM Myndighet för Tillängliga Medier (Authority for accessible media)
OER Open Educational Resources
SSL Swedish Sign Language
WAI Web Accessibility Initiative
W3C World Wide Web Consortium

References
1. White, S.R.; Ingstad, B. (Eds.) Disability in Local and Global Worlds; University of California Press: Berkeley,
CA, USA, 2007.
2. Bagga-Gupta, S. Languaging: Ways-of-being-with-words across Disciplinary Boundaries and Empirical Sites.
In Language Contacts at the Crossroads of Disciplines; Paulasto, H., Riionheimo, H., Meriläinen, L., Kok, M., Eds.;
Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2014; pp. 89–130.
3. Lankshear, C.; Knobel, M. New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning; Open University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2011.
4. Buckingham Shum, S.; Ferguson, R. Social Learning Analytics. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2012, 15, 3–26.
5. Messina Dahlberg, G. Languaging in virtual learning sites: Studies of online encounters in the
language-focused virtual classroom. In Örebro Studies in Education; Örebro University: Örebro, Sweden, 2015;
Volume 49.
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 18 of 19

6. Haythornthwaite, C.; Kazmer, M.M. Learning, Culture and Community in Online Education: Research and
Practice; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
7. Bagga-Gupta, S. Visually oriented bilingualism. Discursive and technological resources in Swedish
Deaf pedagogical arenas. In The Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities Series; Lucas, C., Herreweghe, V.,
Vermeerbergen, M., Eds.; Gallaudet University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 10, pp. 171–207.
8. Holmström, I.; Bagga-Gupta, S. “Va sa han?” Technologies and Participation Strategies in Mainstream School
Settings. In Marginalization Processes. Studies of Membership and Participation Across Disciplines and Sites;
Bagga-Gupta, S., Ed.; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2016.
9. Holmström, I.; Bagga-Gupta, S.; Jonsson, R. Communicating and hand(ling) technologies. Everyday life in
educational settings where pupils with cochlear implants are mainstreamed. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 2015, 25,
256–284. [CrossRef]
10. Bagga-Gupta, S. Privileging identity positions and multimodal communication in textual practices.
Intersectionality and the (re)negotation of boundaries. In Literacy Practices in Transition: Perspectives from the
Nordic Countries; Pitkänen Huhta, A., Holm, L., Eds.; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2012; pp. 75–100.
11. Winther, Y. Vardagsliv i Och utanför Klassrummet. En Explorative Studie om Hur Man Görs till Blind i
Skolan. Master’s Thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2000. (In Swedish)
12. Winther, Y.; Bagga-Gupta, S. The “acquisition” of blindness in communicative spaces. In Proceedings of
the 12th Biennial Conference of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI),
Budapest, Hungary, 28 August–1 September 2007.
13. Bagga-Gupta, S.; Holmström, I. Language, Identity and Technologies in classrooms for the differently-abled.
Commun. Disord. Deaf Stud. Hear. Aids 2015, 3, 1–19. [CrossRef]
14. Garcia, O. Languaging and Ethnifying. In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity; Fishman, A.,
Garcia, O., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 519–534.
15. Butler, J. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
16. Bagga-Gupta, S.; Hansen, A.L.; Feilberg, J. (Eds.) Identity Revisited and Reimagined. Empirical and Theoretical
Contributions on Embodied Communication across Time and Space; Springer: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016;
in press.
17. Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 1991.
18. Säljö, R. Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and
the performative nature of learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2010, 26, 53–64. [CrossRef]
19. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
20. Wertsch, J.V. Mind as Action; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998.
21. Bakhtin, M. Speech Genres & Other Late Essays; Emerson, C., Holquist, M., Eds.; University of Texas Press:
Austen, TX, USA, 1986.
22. Linell, P. Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human
Sense-Making; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2009.
23. Säljö, R. Lärande—En Introduktion till Perspektiv och Metaforer; Gleerups: Malmö, Sweden, 2015. (In Swedish)
24. Antaki, C.; Widdicombe, S. (Eds.) Identities in Talk; Sage: London, UK, 1998.
25. Bagga-Gupta, S. Performing and accounting language and identity: Agency as actors-in-(inter)action-with-tools.
In Theorizing and Analyzing Agency in Second Language Learning: Interdisciplinary Approaches; Deters, P., Gao, X.,
Miller, E., Vitanova-Haralampiev, G., Eds.; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2014; pp. 113–132.
26. Tapio, E. A Nexus Analysis of English in the Everyday Life of FinSL Signers: A Multimodal View on
Interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Jyväskylä University, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2013.
27. Leander, K.; Philips, N.C.; Taylor, H. The Changing Social Spaces of Learning: Mapping New Mobilities.
Rev. Res. Educ. 2010, 34, 329–394. [CrossRef]
28. Ajagán-Lester, L. ”De Andra”: Afrikaner i Svenska Pedagogiska Texter (1768–1965). Ph.D. Thesis,
Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2000. (In Swedish)
29. Leigh, I.W.; Maxwell-McCaw, D. Cochlear Implants: Implications for Deaf Identities. In Cochlear Implants,
Evolving Perspectives; Paludneviciene, R., Leigh, W.I., Eds.; Gallaudet University Press: Washington, DC,
USA, 2011; pp. 95–110.
Informatics 2016, 3, 21 19 of 19

30. Faubion, J.D.; Marcus, G.E. Fieldwork Is Not What It Used to Be: Learning Anthropololgy’s Methods in a Time of
Transition; Cornwell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2009.
31. Bagga-Gupta, S. Center-staging language and identity research from earthrise perspectives. Contextualizing
performances in open spaces. In Identity Revisited and Reimagined. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions on
Embodied Communication across Time and Space; Bagga-Gupta, S., Hansen, A.L., Feilberg, J., Eds.; Springer:
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Chapter 4, in press.
32. Goffman, E. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction; Bobbs-Merrill: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 1961.
33. Becker, H.S. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1963.
34. Hjörne, E.; Säljö, R. Att Platsa i en Skola för Alla: Elevhälsa och Förhandling om Normalitet i den Svenska Skolan;
Norstedts Akademiska Förlag: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. (In Swedish)
35. Bagga-Gupta, S. A common education-for-all and life-long learning?: Reflections on inclusion, equity
and integration. In Theory and Methodology in International Comparative Classroom Studies; Hansen, B., Ed.;
Høyskoleforlaget: Kristiansand, Norway, 2014; Volume 2.
36. Bagga-Gupta, S.; Feilberg, J.; Hansen, A.L. Many-ways-of-being across sites. Identity as (inter)action.
In Identity Revisited and Reimagined. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions on Embodied Communication across
Time and Space; Bagga-Gupta, S., Hansen, A.L., Feilberg, J., Eds.; Springer: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016;
Chapter 1, in press.
37. Participation for All? School and Post-School Pathways of Young People with Functional Disabilities.
Available online: www.ju.se/ccd/pal (accessed on 27 October 2016).
38. Haualand, H. Interpreting Ideals and Relaying Rights. A Comparative Study of Video Interpreting Services
in Norway, Sweden and the United States. Ph.D. Thesis, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway, 2014.
39. Warnicke, C.; Plejert, C. Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS).
J. Pragmat. 2012, 44, 1313–1334. [CrossRef]
40. Holmström, I.; Bagga-Gupta, S. Technologies at work: A sociohistorical analysis of human identities and
communication. Deaf. Educ. Int. 2013, 15, 2–28. [CrossRef]
41. Phillips, A.; Terras, K.; Swinney, L. Online Disability Accomodations: Faculty Experiences at one Public
University. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 2012, 25, 331–344.
42. Trammell, J. Red-Shirting College Students with Disabilities. Learn. Assist. Rev. 2009, 14, 21–31.
43. Martin, J.M. Stigma and student mental health in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2009, 29, 259–274.
[CrossRef]
44. Horst, H.; Miller, D. Digital Anthropology; Bloomsbury: London, UK, 2012.
45. Bagga-Gupta, S. Att Förstå Delaktighet utifrån Forskning som Fokuserar Deltagande och Interaktion/Understanding
Involvement and Participation through Research that has Focused Participation Processes and Interaction;
Specialpedagogiska Institutet/The Swedish Institute for Special Needs Education: Härnosand, Sweden, 2006.
46. Bagga-Gupta, S. Literacies and Deaf Education: A Theoretical Analysis of the International and Swedish Literature;
Forskning i Fokus/Research in Focus nr 23; The Swedish National Agency for School: Stockholm, Sweden,
2004; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/953922/Literacies_and_Deaf_Education_A_theoretical_
analysis_of_the_international_and_Swedish_literature (accessed on 27 October 2016).
47. Bagga-Gupta, S. Project Application to the Swedish Research Council: Participation for All? The Swedish Research
Council: Stockholm, Sweden, 2015.
48. Messina Dahlberg, G.; Bagga-Gupta, S. Enquiring into the research on functionality in Higher Education.
Some outcomes from a pilot meta-study. In Paper to be presented at the European Association of Research
on Learning and Instruction (EARLI 2017), Tampere, Finland, 29 August–2 September 2017.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like