The number of UK students in HE with a declared disability has increased by 46% (HESA, 2022a) over the last five years making up almost 20% of home students (HESA, 2022b). This is a pattern that is being replicated internationally as countries develop more inclusive approaches to policy and legislation, thus providing greater opportunities for individuals with physical needs to access HE (Mays et al., 2020; Pitman et al., 2021). Inclusive education is recognised as a basic human right and a means of ensuring a more fair and equitable society (Ainscow, 2020; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2023). Current thinking around inclusive education, in general, has moved away from a deficit model and towards providing high quality teaching. This places value on providing rich contexts for learning to take place, ensuring all learners can participate (Advance HE, 2018; Conn et al., 2020; Messiou et al., 2016). Within this paradigm is a need for continual reflection and identification of what can be done within the typical learning context to ensure equity and inclusion of all learners (Florian, 2019). With an increasingly diverse student population, HEIs have an obligation to ensure that anyone who chooses to study at their institution is neither directly, nor indirectly disadvantaged (Burke et al., 2016).

Despite a continued increase in the numbers of disabled students accessing HE in the UK, implementing the principles of equitable, accessible, and inclusive education within an HE environment is both challenging (Moriña, 2017) and a low priority on the HE agenda (Disabled Students UK, 2022). In 2009 Advance HE published a report entitled ‘to promote inclusive practice in building design and refurbishment in HE, through outlining a process that will ensure equality is taken into consideration at key stages of development’. While this report demonstrated initial steps in providing guidance when considering reasonable adjustments to facilities and estates, no further action has been taken since to address environmental barriers to accessibility. Ensuring inclusivity within this paradigm can be problematic, as Mays et al. (2020, p.23) assert, ‘often inclusion has occurred where professors [university lecturers] act with invisibility towards a person’s differences’ with an indication that HE, in encouraging higher order thinking might lead towards a more inclusive and accessible environment. This supposition, it could be argued, has a propensity to lean towards complacency, reducing the desire for honest reflection and genuine audit of learners’ experiences, resulting in inequitable practices. It does not allow for a comprehensive and consistent approach in attempting to both understand and overcome challenges that learners with different physical needs face.

Research exploring the experiences of learners with physical needs in HE is limited, however there is consensus in barriers faced by disabled students in general and the disconnection between HE policy and personal experience (e.g., Hadjikakou et al., 2010; Hector, 2020; Langørgen et al., 2018). Berggren et al. (2016) compared experiences of disabled students in three countries from five institutions. Findings indicated that student relationships with lecturers predicated academic success (i.e., that individual lecturers were instrumental in making decisions about adjustments) and that, despite policy, there was an onus on students to compensate for their disability in overcoming challenges. Indeed, many chose not to disclose a physical need to protect their identity as ‘ordinary students’ (Breggren et al., 2016, p.352). Langørgen et al. (2018) found that students had to rely upon their own resources to ensure academic success without drawing attention to their disability. Biewer et al. (2015) stated that success, both in terms of transition and academic achievement was due to additional, extraordinary familial support, and not via an HEI. This is also true of disabled academics, as Brown et al. (2018) suggest, they need to increase work production to be on a par with able-bodied peers. It appears that despite a policy shift from a segregated to a more inclusive approach to education as identified by Hardy et al. (2015), there is a pervasive incongruity between HE policy and personal experience, particularly around disability impacting on transition. While there is a need for comprehensive, institutional change to ensure equity of experience for all learners, it appears that currently adjustments are implemented at an individual, micro- rather than a macro-level.

In exploring the transition experiences of learners with physical needs, viewing transition solely through an individualistic lens does not allow for the complexity of the transition process to be fully understood. All learners experience multiple transitions as they move through the education system and entering HE can prove challenging, particularly for learners with ‘alternative needs’ (Cage et al., 2021, p. 1081). Jindal-Snape (2023) argues that transition is a complex and dynamic process, and that any change or movement has ramifications across a range of areas which, in turn, can affect more than one person. These transitions are neither ‘linear nor sequential’ and are experienced daily across multiple domains (Jindal-Snape, 2023, p. 536). Conceptualising this within the Multiple and Multi-dimensional theory, Jindal-Snape (ibid, p. 540) proposes that individuals experience transitions across a range of domains (e.g. social, psychological, educational) both dynamic and evolving, which interact and impact on significant others. This is presented as 12 pillars, which interact and are interdependent of each other.

For a better understanding of transition experiences of US learners with physical needs, Mays et al. (2020) postulated for a greater validity to the transition experiences of individuals focusing on their narrative and analysis of what is said rather than researcher interpretation of their experience. Findings by Mays et al. (2020), identified a negative discourse (around the transition experiences for disabled learners) while arguing that in interacting with students they no longer are passive recipients within the institution. Mays et al.’s (2020) conclusions identified a need to learn about others (atypical students) to develop and model best practice. However, to apply Jindal-Snape’s (2023) twelve pillars of successful multiple and multi-dimensional transitions to conceptualise the transition of learners with physical needs to HE, one must recognise that transitions are personal, ongoing, and dynamic. As such there is a need to present a more holistic overview in not only identifying the challenges but exploring ways to address and overcome these. This will enable emerging discourse, possibly requiring disclosure, about what constitutes a successful transition for learners with physical needs into HE, to bring about meaningful and relevant insights to transform and improve experiences.

A concern amongst the research team was positionality in terms of reporting and analysing the responses of learners with physical needs without personal lived experience. The representation of disability and research around disability by individuals without disabilities is a central concern of the disability rights movement. Kitchin (2000) and Peterson (2011) advocate the inclusion of disabled people as advisors and collaborators in research, as well as participants. Two advisors were consulted (disabled students at the authors’ HEI) throughout the research process and participants were encouraged to voice further pertinent issues potentially unexplored during the interviews, confirm transcripts, and invited to comment on this article prior to submission for publication.

Due to the retrospective, scoping nature of this project, purposive sampling was used to recruit willing volunteers who were either current or former HE students (within the past 5 years) via the researchers’ HEI and through professional and personal networks. Participant recruitment proved challenging for researchers, corresponding with current trends around disclosure as identified in the literature. There appears to be a reluctance to disclose or declare disabled status because of prior negative experiences (Berggren et al., 2016; Kendall, 2016; Liasidou, 2014) or some students might not consider themselves to have a physical need (Jacklin, 2011).

All participants self-identified as having a physical disability, but there was variety in the nature of the participants’ disabilities. Table 1 summarises contextual information about participants. Approval for the research proposal was granted by the associated University Research Ethics Committee prior to data collection. Participants were given information letters detailing the purpose of the project, potential involvement and key ethical issues relating to their right to withdraw, data confidentiality and anonymity. Written consent was sought prior to data collection, and a verbal brief was provided prior to each interview to ensure participants had ample opportunity to ask questions and/or withdraw due to the potential sensitivity of the research topic. Data were stored on a secure cloud storage system accessible only to the researchers and retained in accordance with the HEI’s guidelines (BERA, 2018).

The study adopted a qualitative approach, with emphasis on making sense and interpreting the social world through the perspective of participants, and to better understand the phenomena under investigation (Denzin et al., 2005). This approach enabled the research team to document and establish an in-depth exploration of students’ lived experiences of HE, allowing rich and extensive data to be generated relating to perceived enablers and barriers to HE engagement and success.

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data to allow a degree of both flexibility and focus on the interviewee’s viewpoint (Walliman, 2011). It is commonly viewed as a beneficial method to explore the lives and opinions of individual people to generate understanding about perceptions of experiences (Silverman, 2007). An interview guide was developed which included a general focus of inquiry and several areas to explore during each interview. Flexibility associated with semi-structured interviews allowed for further probing, elaboration, and clarification of participant responses. This ensured that participants were able and express what was important to them, directing the conversation, rather than being restricted to answering a set of closed and structured questions.

The interview guide consisted of eight questions with prompts to allow follow-up questions if required. Introductory questions related to demographic information, followed by questions which allowed participants to share their decision to attend university; support available during the transition; and their actual lived experience of studying within a HEI. All interviews (n = 7) were conducted on Microsoft Teams. Online interviewing was decided as the most effective means to collect data. For example, it allowed flexibility in terms of scheduling and organising interviews; reduced/eliminated traveling time and costs and eased the recruitment process and data collection of geographically dispersed participants (James et al., 2009). Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

A thematic analysis approach was used to analyse the qualitative interviews. Thematic analysis is defined as a research method used for analysing large-scale qualitative findings, by examining the data to identify, analyse and record repeated patterns or themes within the data (Braun et al., 2006). The research team closely followed Braun et al.’s (2006, p. 87), six phase guide to conducting thematic analysis. This process is described as:

The research team worked independently to create codes and themes (stage 1–3) and then reviewed these both as a team and independently to ensure consistency in how the themes were interpreted and developed, linked to both intra and inter-rater reliability. One key advantage of thematic analysis is that it provides a systematic way of organising large-scale data into themes or categories (Braun et al., 2012), including a range of perspectives, experiences and interpretations generated by participants that is so often associated with qualitative interviewing. This approach allowed an exploration of both commonalities and nuanced experiences amongst the learners with a physical need.

Whilst all seven participants attended HE, different factors influenced where they chose to study. Most participants (4/7) stated that, there was a difficult balance between choosing their preferred course versus the physical accessibility of the HEI itself, which limited choices available to learners with a physical need from the outset. As Rachel explained:

Before entering HE, some experienced barriers that resulted in narrowing the choice of academic course. Whilst this did not deter participants from accessing HE, it was clear that their choice of institutions was limited due to a perceived lack of preparedness by HEIs to accommodate for their physical needs. In these circumstances, participants compromised their choice of academic course. For example, Geraint claimed he was rejected from some courses based on responses by HEIs that they could not accommodate his physical needs:

Isobel commented on the physical accessibility of the campus, in particular accommodation. Having attended some Open Days, she did not feel her needs could be met with the accommodation provided, therefore, decided to remain at home for her studies. The decision to remain at home created a different conundrum, between the choice of academic course and the proximity of the University. Whilst the physical accessibility of the University accommodation was a perceived barrier for Isobel, due to her disability she felt more dependent on her family support network than her peers, which created a personal barrier. Isobel described herself as “emotionally immature, younger than her years…… a side effect of the disability.” This evidences consequent effects of not being able to access student accommodation and additional factors relating to the need to maintain, or depend upon, family support networks, as highlighted by Biewer et al. (2015), in choosing where to study.

Whilst some participants perceived the physical accessibility of HEIs to be a barrier when deciding where to study, one participant praised the perceived accessibility and support provided at different HEIs. Nicola stated she was sceptical about being able to attend University due to experiences of poor accessibility while at secondary school. This initially dissuaded Nicola from considering HE as a next step, however she soon discovered that the support and physical accommodations at HE surpassed expectations (Burke et al., 2016).

Whilst many of the participants above expressed initial perceived barriers relating to physical accessibility, limiting their choice of institution and academic course, all disclosed lived experiences whereby they faced restrictions within their environment and/or the facilities. Magnus (2009) asserts that there is a lack of tradition in HE for accommodating disabled students and a need to effect change through central policy (as identified by Hardy et al., 2015; Hector, 2020). Within this study, participants shared experiences of poor physical accessibility beyond the learning environments. For example, two participants disclosed experiences of student accommodation that was classed as wheelchair accessible; however, doorframes were too narrow and there was no room to manoeuvre, thus an impractical living space. It was considered that often the online perception presented on university websites of suitable accommodation were inaccurate and exaggerated lived realities:

Other participants focused more on the social implications that the adapted accommodations spaces brought with them. Nicola spoke positively about accommodation at her university however, due a lack of suitable private housing, Nicola was permitted to remain beyond first year due to her physical needs. Whilst reasonable adjustments were made to the HEI accommodation policy, there was no flexibility in allowing her peers to share accommodation with her (as in her first year) resulting in the expectation that Nicola would socialise with new Year 1 students during her second year:

These experiences reveal some of the restrictions with accommodation spaces, particularly for wheelchair users, and highlights the social implications and potential isolation learners with a physical disability can experience even when adjustments are provided.

Some participants (3/7) referred to challenges posed by physical inaccessibility of learning spaces, especially lecture theatres which were considered inflexible learning environments that created a sense of nervousness, particularly during the first week of lectures. For any student, this can be anxiety-provoking:

This highlights how unprepared Paula was in knowing how to utilise the space effectively. Similarly, Nicola echoed the challenges of lecture theatre design as the entrance was to the rear of the theatre with stairs leading down to the front. This significantly restricted her access as she could only sit at the very back of the lecture theatre which meant she often felt excluded when teaching staff insisted other students sit towards the front of the lecture theatre. Sitting at the back of the lecture theatre meant that Nicola did not always hear what was being said, thus missing content despite having attended sessions. These examples highlight the inflexibility of lecture theatres as learning spaces, but also suggests that minor modifications to the space i.e., use of assistive technology and/or the pedagogical approach of academic staff could reduce perceptions of social and/or learning exclusion.

Whilst the above examples provide insight into the restrictions of both disabled-specific living and general learning spaces, Katie also discussed how access to and use of specialist spaces for her course was not suitable for wheelchair users:

Fortunately for Katie, the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent restrictions meant that sessions using specialist spaces were cancelled. This was a relief for Katie who was internalising feelings of anxiousness about how to attend these sessions, let alone participate. Online learning due to Covid-19 meant that concerns about accessing learning spaces were quashed, nonetheless her interview revealed a lack of consideration of how specialist spaces could restrict accessibility for learners with physical needs (Disabled Students UK, 2022; Moriña, 2017). Other examples were given by participants where campus facilities were unsuitable. Geraint reflected on when using the lift to access teaching spaces he would often “get stuck”. This demonstrates that not only are the design of university buildings inflexible but also facilities intended to enhance access are inadequate in meeting the access needs of learners with physical needs; particularly for, but not exclusively, wheelchair users.

Healey et al. (2006) argued that there is a clear relationship between impairment, obstacles to learning, and appropriate adjustments. During interviews, participants reflected on both the knowledge of and level of support that was provided on their specific programme courses. Two key reasonable adjustments were referenced during interviews which related to flexibility with attendance at lectures. Lecturers appeared to grant authorised absences during periods of time when participants experienced “flare ups” with their physical disabilities and the use of recording lectures using technology to ensure that participants could still access the verbal content of sessions which was appreciated by participants. Participant experiences appeared dependent on the type of programme/specific module that they were enrolled on; that is, some participants studied more theoretical-based degrees therefore seemed to have more positive experiences of reasonable adjustments to support their physical needs than participants enrolled on more practical-based courses.

In particular, 3/7 participants provided specific examples of exclusion from opportunities available to other students. Rachel explained that her course offered optional modules, but she was somewhat deterred from these due to the involvement of organised trips providing students with an enriched student experience:

Rachel’s reluctance to engage with certain modules was based on previous experiences such as when students were provided with an opportunity to visit a museum. Rather than considering ways in which Rachel could participate, she was instructed by her lecturer to explore online museum catalogues instead. This calls into question how students, such as Rachel, are provided with equal opportunities at HEIs in making reasonable adjustments for their physical needs. It was clear, in this instance, that the onus was on Rachel to approach her lecturer with concerns about attending the trip, rather than the lecturer pro-actively considering the potential barriers this could pose and discussing with Rachel.

Anna echoed similar experiences stating she felt it was her responsibility to approach the programme team to discuss accessibility issues and considerations around reasonable adjustments. In these circumstances students were approaching individual lecturers on modules rather than having a designated member of the programme team, for example a personal tutor, to discuss any potential issues in a holistic manner:

For Nicola, the practical components of her degree course meant often she felt excluded in class and prevented from fully participating in some sessions. Nicola identifies one exercise session where she literally “sat watching” whilst other students undertook the task, with no effort by the lecturer to engage Nicola in the session. Unsurprisingly, this impacted on Nicola’s motivation levels, and ability to learn as she was unable to experience how specific exercises should be completed:

Additionally, Nicola became aware of practical components to an examination and approached her lecturer to explore alternative ways in which she could demonstrate her knowledge. Nicola stated:

In this instance, Nicola pro-actively escalated the issue to senior management. After discussion, some straightforward reasonable adjustments were implemented, e.g. providing a weekly schedule of sessions so that pre-planning could be considered, investment in assistive equipment to support the practical components, allowing Nicola to remain on her chosen module. These examples strongly suggest that students need to self-advocate rather than, Holloway (2001) suggests, University systems implementing reasonable adjustments following initial disclosure, thus enabling a typical student experience.

Nicola’s narrative demonstrates how her course experience led her to feeling excluded and isolated, but, as with Anna and Rachel, she had to approach members of the programme team to seek support. Nicola argued that such adjustments need to be considered as part of the course design rather a reaction because of disabled students voicing their experiences, interfering with learning, and creating a sense of exclusion. This supports Hopkins’ (2011) findings that disabled students must become assertive in addressing the challenges faced. The lack of a proactive approach at an HE level illustrates additional challenges faced by students in addition to responsibilities placed upon them to ensure their needs are met (Disabled Students UK, 2022). Lecturer attitudes towards adjustments may reflect a belief that such adjustments are an individual matter (a medicalised approach) rather than a sign that the wider system (social model) requires change (Holloway, 2001; Magnus, 2009). This would entail a change in HEI culture with greater understanding and knowledge of reasonable adjustments for individual students.

Centralised support mechanisms such as Student Services were referred to during interviews with participants. Student Services were praised by most students (4/7) for the initial support provided with dedicated time given to discuss individual needs and suggestions around a range of reasonable adjustments later documented on Individual Support Plans (ISPs) to ensure participants could engage in the theoretical components of their courses e.g., use of a note taker or assistive technology:

Whilst HEIs are more attuned with reaching and supporting students who disclose a disability, Tinklin et al. (1999) argue that the support is channelled towards equipping individuals to overcome obstacles that ideally should not exist. Despite examples of support during their first weeks at university, some participants expressed challenges in the communication between central student services and lecturers. While it was unclear why there was a communication issue, both Nicola and Anna highlighted the barriers that this created:

Anna’s statement questions why lecturers were not aware of her needs, and maybe explains the lack of reasonable adjustments made at programme level. It perhaps offers an explanation as to why the onus appears to be on the student to question whether reasonable adjustments can be made. This is further highlighted by Nicola who recalls that during her first week:

Interviews with participants illustrated that while central Student Services provided early support and officially documented useful strategies to support the physical needs of learners, ineffective communication with relevant programme teams resulted in a lack of knowledge and awareness of students’ circumstances. Inadequate information and insufficient coordination of information are other known hurdles for students to overcome (Brandt, 2011). Initial negative experiences cause disruption and inconvenience for individual students with physical needs and re-emphasises the need for lecturers to prepare appropriately for learners to avoid longer-term disruption to studies and exclusion.

Participants highlighted the importance of having representation and a voice in HE, especially in areas that directly affected them, i.e., having disabled members of staff at senior levels and/or human resources. There was consensus around a lack of understanding by HEIs of the lived experiences and challenges faced by disabled students. Participants felt their experiences could be improved with greater understanding by HEIs of their situations. Compassion, empathy, and sympathy were key traits expressed by participants as essential when making effective decisions with regards to disabled students. In their study exploring the ideal university classroom for disabled students, Camacho et al. (2017) identified several recommendations by disabled students in creating inclusive and accessible classrooms. These included the consideration of the needs of disabled students as part of course syllabus and design; a shift in staff mentality and attitudes towards disability and disabled students; and staff awareness training to better inform lecturers about the needs of disabled students.

Referring to accommodating for accessibility, Nicola commented:

Geraint stressed the importance of having a senior member of management with a physical need to influence decision-making:

Not only has previous literature advocated the need for students with a disability to be pro-actively consulted in the Universal Design of universities (Mole, 2013), but it has been recognised that there is an under-representation of minority groups occupying decision-making and senior management positions (Advance HE, 2019).