students with disabilities in post-secondary education: the perspectives of wheelchair users

Students with disabilities inpost-secondary education: Theperspectives of wheelchair users

STANLEY PAUL Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy,College of Health and Human Services, Western Michigan University,Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA

ABSTRACT: Changes in higher education in the United States usually occur inresponse to societal attitudes and social and legislative policies. Over the past 15 years,post-secondary institutions have experienced a significant increase in the enrolment ofstudents with disabilities, a trend that has resulted in more wheelchair users in collegesand universities. Wheelchair users have unique problems among students with disabili-ties because of the presence of physical barriers in university environments and somenegative attitudinal barriers. In this study, the university life experience of six studentswith disabilities, who used a wheelchair to attend school, was explored. A qualitativemethodology involving one-on-one interviews was used with two undergraduate andfour postgraduate students attending a large urban university. The interview sessionswere analysed and the data coded into descriptive themes. The six major themes were:what college education means to us; making choices; personal support network; institu-tional responsibility; university community; and self-promotion – a much-needed busi-ness tool. ‘Experience is a wholesome process’ had emerged as a meta-themeconnecting all six themes together into describing the student educational experience.The data obtained describe university life from the perspective of these participants.Barriers to participating in university life are identified and facilitating factors for satis-factory university life are explored. Further research is recommended to understand thefactors in a university environment that prevent students who are disabled and use awheelchair from succeeding. A few suggestions recommended by the researcher are:rural and suburban institutions could be studied separately; studies could be doneexclusively with undergraduate or postgraduate students; separate studies should bedone with students with different disability categories and disability levels; the supportnetwork could be included in the data collection.

Key words: disability, environmental barriers, academic/social integration.

90 Occupational Therapy International, 6(2), 90–109, 1999 © Whurr Publishers Ltd

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 90

Introduction and purpose

Increasing numbers of students with disabilities and wheelchair users areenrolling in a wide variety of higher educational institutions in the UnitedStates due in part to strict federal laws, political support, the work of disabilitygroups and media coverage (Bowman and Marzouk, 1990; Hirschhorn, 1992).On entering college, students with disabilities must make two major adjust-ments: first, adapting to those things every student faces, such as leaving thecomfort of home, living on their own, managing their finances and having tocompete with other students; and second, dealing with the disability in a col-lege environment. Although the daily life tasks of most adults may be quitesimilar, those of individuals with a disability are more complicated (Grahamet al., 1991).

Occupational therapists play an important part in helping individuals withdisabilities achieve maximum independence in daily activities and socialroles. The data available in the occupational therapy literature about adultcollege students with disabilities are limited. Occupational therapy servicesare well developed and widely used in pre-school and primary educational lev-els, such as in school-based practice and special education (Anderson, 1993),but rarely have occupational therapists reported working with college studentswith disabilities.

The purpose of this study was to explore the university life experience ofadult student wheelchair users. It was intended to provide more information foroccupational therapy practitioners who work with college students with disabili-ties. It is hoped that the data obtained will provide an ‘inside look’ at studentuniversity life and identify both barriers and facilitating factors to satisfactoryuniversity life among adult student wheelchair users. This ‘inside look’ could alsohave implications for the design of services for these individuals. Learning aboutthe experiences of these individuals can contribute to the university’s ability tofacilitate successful experiences for wheelchair users. Also the data gatheredfrom the research are intended to provide preliminary information for later con-ceptualization for understanding wheelchair-using students with disabilities in alarge urban university environment. This research could suggest programmes andpolicies to improve service delivery to student wheelchair users. The findings arealso intended to provide clues for further investigation of the service milieu sur-rounding post-secondary disabled services across the country.

Theories and models of student change

Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, an impressive number of formal theoriesof student change have been advanced. The two general models and theoriesof student change discernible in the literature on college students are develop-mental theories and college impact models. Developmental theories of student change view the change process as a general movement toward greater

Students with disabilities in post-secondary education 91

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 91

differentiation, integration and complexity in the ways that individuals think,value and behave (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). This movement is typical-ly seen as orderly, sequential and hierarchical, passing through ever-higherlevels or stages of development, and to some extent as age related (Chicker-ing, 1969; Perry, 1970). However, developmental theories were found to giveexcessive importance to the human developmental process of biological andpsychological maturation of individuals (Pascarella, 1985). College impactmodels, on the other hand, assign importance to both the individual charac-teristics and the environment. These models assign a prominent and specificrole to the context in which the student acts and thinks, one of the contextsbeing the university environment. According to college impact models stu-dents are seen as active participants in their own growth (Tinto, 1975, 1987).The environment is seen as an active force that affords opportunities forchange-inducing encounters and on occasions requires a student to respond(Tinto, 1987). Thus, change is influenced not only by whether and how thestudent responds, but also by the nature and intensity of the environmentalstimuli. Institutional structures, policies, programmes and services (whetheracademic or non-academic), as well as the attitudes, values and behaviours ofthe people who occupy and to some extent define institutional environments,are all seen as potential sources of influence in students’ cognitive and affec-tive changes (Astin, 1985; Pascarella, 1985). The researcher strongly believesthat the uniqueness of institutional environments has a clear impact on stu-dent experiences. Thus the more salient and explanatory nature of the collegeimpact models provided the basis for the foreshadowed problem of this study.

Research studies on student life

Mulcahey (1992) interviewed four high-school students who sustained spinal-cord injuries and returned to their school environments. Their perceptions,feelings and experiences of returning to school were explored. Intensive inter-views with open-ended questions were used to elicit descriptive information onthe experience of returning to the school environment. The results suggestedthat returning to the same school and peer groups after a disability was very dif-ficult for these individuals, and the school’s physical and social environmentswere ill-prepared for their re-entry. A qualitative case study by Synatschk(1994) examined the experiences of five college students with learning disabil-ities who successfully completed their studies at a major research university.Synatschk (1994) found that the interaction of the perceptions of life-eventstressors and individual abilities and disabilities influenced the types of actiontaken by successful college students with learning disabilities. The studentsexpressed a conflict between their desire to be independent and their desire touse services and accommodations available to them.

West and colleagues (1993) surveyed 40 college and university studentswith disabilities to identify their levels of satisfaction with accessibility, special

92 Paul

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 92

services and accommodations at their schools. Respondents generallyexpressed satisfaction with the services that they had received in their schools.However, most of the students indicated that they had encountered barriers totheir education, including a lack of understanding and cooperation fromadministrators, faculty, staff and other students; lack of adaptive aids and otheraccommodations; and inaccessibility of buildings and grounds. English (1993)conducted a survey to determine the role of disability support services in theintegration and retention of 35 hearing-impaired college students. Participantsindicated a higher level of academic integration compared with social integra-tion, and a very high commitment to their intention to stay in school. Analy-sis of the survey results revealed that support services had a direct effect onacademic integration, and an indirect effect on intent to stay in school. How-ever, there was no effect of support services on social integration.

Anderson (1993) surveyed 26 students with disabilities and 66 non-dis-abled students regarding social support and barriers to post-secondary educa-tion. Both students with and without disabilities described the social supportnetwork as important to successful adjustment to university. However, stu-dents with disabilities expressed concerns related to physical barriers in theuniversity buildings, the need for emotional support and ongoing adjustmentto disability, which were not readily identified by the non-disabled students.A postal survey by Flowers (1993) investigated factors which best predict aca-demic achievement and academic persistence among students with disabilitiesat a post-secondary institution. The sample for the study was composed of 167students who self-reported having a disability and had attended a major uni-versity between autumn 1990 and summer 1992. Analysis of the data suggest-ed that academic achievement, measured by GPA (Grade Point Average),was the best predictor for academic persistence, measured by number ofsemesters attended.

Method

Six students from a large urban university who have disabilities requiringthem to use a wheelchair volunteered to participate in the study. A naturalis-tic paradigm has provided the framework for this study. Its objective is tounderstand and describe the human experience, as it is perceived by thoseparticipating in the phenomenon (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Thomas, 1993).The data gathered related directly to people’s real-life experiences. Qualita-tive interviews were used for data gathering and analysis. This approachinvolves a limited number of participants which allows for in-depth study ofeach participant (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992).

The participant selection criterion was that they all used a wheelchair perma-nently for daily activities and attending university. The sample consisted of bothundergraduate and postgraduate students, full-time and part-time students, cam-pus residents and commuters. Table 1 provides a description of the participants.


OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 93

TA

BLE

1: P

arti

cipa

nt d

ata

shee

t

Part

icip

ant

Age

Gen

der

Prim

ary

Dur

atio

n of

Yea

rsLe

vel o

fM

ajor

Livi

ngM

ode

ofdi

agno

sis

whe

elch

air

atte

ndin

ged

ucat

ion

acco

mm

- tr

ansp

ort

use

univ

ersi

ty in

odat

ion

(yea

rs)

whe

elch

air

Stac

y28

FSp

inal

cor

d8

8G

radu

ate

Hea

lth/

hum

anO

n a

nd o

ff Pu

blic

/sch

ool

inju

ryst

uden

tse

rvic

e re

late

dca

mpu

str

ansp

ort

Bru

ce42

MSp

inal

cor

d20

11G

radu

ate

Hea

lth/

hum

anO

n D

rive

s sel

fin

jury

stud

ent

serv

ice

rela

ted

cam

pus

Ron

24M

Mus

cula

r7

4Se

nior

Art

s rel

ated

On

Publ

ic/s

choo

ldy

stro

phy

cam

pus

tran

spor

t

Kat

e39

FPo

st-p

olio

33

Gra

duat

eH

uman

Off

D

rive

n bv

synd

rom

est

uden

tse

rvic

e re

late

dca

mpu

ssp

ouse

Joe

20M

Spin

al15

2Ju

nior

Bus

ines

sO

n

Publ

ic/s

choo

lm

uscu

lar

rela

ted

cam

pus

tran

spor

tat

roph

y

Mit

ch26

MSp

inal

cor

d10

6G

radu

ate

Hum

anO

ff D

rive

n by

Stud

ent

serv

ice

rela

ted

cam

pus

pers

onal

atte

ndan

t

94 Paul

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 94

In-depth, one-on-one interviews were used for data collection. An inter-view guide with open-ended questions was used for data collection (Table 2).Two one-on-one interviews and a third and final follow-up interview wereconducted with each participant.

The constant-comparative method, advocated by Glaser and Strauss(1973), was used for the qualitative data analysis. According to constant-com-parative method, data collection and data analysis procedures occur concur-rently and are interwoven throughout the research (Strauss and Corbin,1994). Also a qualitative computer software program called NUD.IST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing) (Richardsand Richards, 1994) was used to assist in data analysis.

In order to establish credibility, triangulation, member checking and peerdebriefing were used. Ely and colleagues (1991) describe triangulation as com-paring accounts (cross-checking of each interview, member checks and per-sonal memos) with one another to increase the likelihood of credible data.Triangulation of data facilitates investigation and helps to resolve discrepan-cies. Member checks included discussing with the participants the emergentthemes and categories and validating them throughout the process of dataanalysis (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992). Besides triangulation and memberchecks, the researcher was also a member of an interdisciplinary support groupcomprising doctoral students conducting qualitative research, who acted asthe peer debriefing group. Peer coding and analysing data, discussing andresolving discrepancies in the data, reviewing and adapting the emergentdesign, and reviewing emerging analytic findings, served as a means of reduc-ing research stress and guarded against loss of investigator objectivity (Lincolnand Guba, 1985).


TABLE 2: Interview guide

Could you please describe what it is like to attend university in a wheelchair?What would you consider a satisfactory university experience?

These were the two major questions explored by the researcher. However, as the interviewprogressed into second and third sessions, further questions discussed the following issues:their decision to choose their particular institution; accessibility features of their university;disability services; knowledge level of the university community about wheelchair users; theirinteractions with different people in the university environment; their personal support sys-tems (family, friends); and employment-related issues and future plans.

Depending on the information and issues that were brought up voluntarily by the partici-pants, the content areas and amount of information varied from individual to individual.Some participants discussed few of these areas and some most of the areas. The openinginterview guided the path for further exploration of the issues.

The interview guide was developed according to the method by Lofland and Lofland (1984,pp. 53–7).

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 95

Results

The six participants perceived university life experience as a complex processinvolving interactions among various human and non-human features of theuniversity. A total of six major themes and a meta-theme emerged from theanalysis. The themes were: (1) what college education means to us; (2) makingchoices; (3) personal support network; (4) institutional responsibility; (5) uni-versity community; and (6) self-promotion – a much-needed business tool.‘Experience is a wholesome process’ had emerged as a meta-theme connectingall six themes describing the student educational experience (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: The themes and meta-theme that emerged from the responses of university studentwheelchair users to the interview questions

What college education means to us

Participants described their university life starting from what college educa-tion meant to them, to their individual experiences in the university. High-er education was considered as a tool to gain recognition and respect insociety. Each recognized personal aspiration and pressures from family andfriends as motivators that influenced their decision to attend college. Allparticipants wanted to show that individuals with disabilities have the driveand capability to excel and that physical disabilities need not be a limitingfactor in their contribution to society. One participant explained:

96 Paul

Makingchoices

Experience isa wholesome

process

What collegeeducation

means to us

Self-promotion –

a much-needed

business tool

University community

Institutionalresponsibility

Personalsupportnetwork

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 96

The drive to succeed . . . meaning that you are out there and I think everybody has thedrive to succeed, but I think in disabled people it is a little bit stronger and that is myopinion. . . . I think people constantly out there tell you something, like you can’t dothat, you are disabled, you can’t do that, and you get a lot stronger hearing that; you getreally adamant, you get stubborn about succeeding . . . succeeding in education.

According to the participants, individuals with disabilities are not visiblein everyday life and are not adequately represented at social events and in themedia. This invisibility was identified as a motivating factor to obtain highereducation by the participants. For example,

People with disabilities are the largest minority in the US and they are virtually absentfrom the public view. . . . I think higher education is one way to get the public’s atten-tion. . . . I think I have that opportunity to do so . . . that’s what I want to do.

According to these participants, society still underestimates individualswith disabilities, which motivated them to set their goals on personal achieve-ment. Participants said that the under-representation of wheelchair users andother individuals with disabilities in daily life, low expectation of their abili-ties and the general public’s lack of respect have all encouraged these partici-pants to seek higher education. Success was equated with being a contributingmember of society and becoming an expert in a particular field. Some consid-ered a college degree a necessity for securing employment. Several partici-pants indicated that their decision was also influenced by parents, familymembers, friends and acquaintances. They all believed that post-secondaryeducation would take them wherever they want to go in life, towards a betterjob, economic success, proving their accomplishments, reducing misconcep-tions about individuals with disabilities and, ultimately, self-achievement.

Making choices

Choosing the right university was considered a very important factor. They allconsidered it to be an anxiety-provoking task. As one participant put it:

Choosing a school is anxiety-provoking . . . say every piece of the move adds more anx-iety. The fact that I was moving to college was an anxiety in itself . . . The fact that Iwas moving from being at home with my family into an independent atmosphere wasan added anxiety. And of course being in comparison . . . to another student who maynot be disabled . . . was an added anxiety . . . each one of those added more to overallanxiety.

Myriad factors were considered by these participants. Academic status ofthe institution, proximity to family, city location, kerb cuts, smoothness ofstreets, wheelchair travel issues, public transportation and safety of the citywere all considered by all to have different degrees of importance. Also physi-cal accessibility features of the institution itself, such as accessible buildings,


OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 97

lifts, accessible classrooms, accessible lavatories, accessible desks, housingfacilities for wheelchair users, library facilities, computer facilities, distancebetween buildings and the amount of time it would take to travel betweenclasses, accessible recreation facilities, and accessibility to different academicand social events taking place in the university were all considered by thesestudents. Participants assumed that a large university such as theirs would bemore accessible because of public laws and regulations. All but one participanthad active contact with their school’s disability services and had made site vis-its before enrolling. General factors that all participants considered in choos-ing their school were academic standing, physical accessibility features,disability services, urban location and closeness to home. Some participantsalso considered dormitory facilities, financial assistance and the diversity ofthe student population often associated with urban universities as positive fac-tors in their choice. Most participants said that their decision to choose thatparticular school was also based on the extent of the school’s disability ser-vices. However, one participant who had good upper extremity function andwas independent in all his activities of daily living did not consider the avail-ability of various disability services as a requirement for his selection.

There were some individual differences regarding concerns and issues inchoosing a school. Two participants raised a point not mentioned by others.They said that they chose the present school because of its location in a multi-cultural city and for its ethnically and culturally diverse student body. Theyfelt that such a school would offer them an opportunity to experience theworld without having to travel abroad.

There were differences between the postgraduate and undergraduate par-ticipants in prioritizing factors which influenced their choice. Both under-graduate students preferred to live in the dormitory, which they equated withan opportunity to learn to live away from the constant protection of family.They believed that their stay in the school dormitory would enable them totake part in various school activities, and experience the social life of theinstitution. They also believed that living in the dormitory saved time andenergy spent on travelling to school each day. Postgraduate students, on theother hand, preferred commuting to school and indicated factors such as theshorter time required to complete their education, the expenses involved inliving in the dormitory, having a full-time job, and having their own family asreasons for commuting to school rather than staying in the dormitory. Generalfactors which most participants considered in choosing their school were aca-demic standing, physical accessibility features, disability services, urban loca-tion and closeness to home.

Personal support network

All participants had some form of a personal support network assisting themwith their school-related needs and academic goals. These support networks

98 Paul

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm 8

consisted of family members, friends, the institution’s disability services, andexternal agencies which included federal and state disability assistance ser-vices. All participants maintained that belonging to a support network assist-ed them in their adjustment to attending school in a wheelchair and facingthe daily demands of university life. Participants derived financial, emotional,informational and physical support from their personal support system. Familyemerged as the foremost support network for all participants. As one partici-pant described:

My parents . . . they were like encouraging me. . . . I won’t say forcing but definitelysaying that they support me in my future education and career. I value that very much.. . . I received support from family . . . and family is probably the big one . . . family isboth emotional and financial . . . it is extraordinarily important in my school life.

The support system from friends provided academic/intellectual (note tak-ing, typing, taping, photocopying, informational), social and emotional help.Some also obtained physical support from their friends on occasions. Mostparticipants received tangible academic services provided through the disabil-ity services.

A few students considered faculty to be part of their personal support net-work. Most participants used personal care attendants for specific physical(assistance with self-care) and school-related needs (carrying books, photo-copying). External agencies such as Independent Living Centres, the StateOffice of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabili-ties, and funding sources such as Medicaid and Medicare have all been usedby the participants during college and they considered them to be part of theirsupport system as well. It was apparent that these participants had financialneeds beyond what most college students encounter and the disability lawsand social agencies provided some assistance to them. Also, the degree ofimportance and the extent of support network services needed and used dif-fered from student to student, depending on the physical and financial inde-pendence of the individual.

Institutional responsibility

Participants believed the university has the ultimate responsibility in assistingthem towards academic success as well as providing opportunities for much-needed social integration. They believed the school should make individualspecific reasonable accommodations. They reported that their school had alot of limitations of its own, from old buildings, to fewer wheelchair users oncampus, to differing familiarity with the needs of the wheelchair users amongfaculty and students in different departments and a constant struggle to sur-vive through all that. Many of the participants believed that the low numberof student wheelchair users contributes to this problem and suggested frequentorientation programmes to heighten the awareness. The university had made


OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 99

both universal as well as individual disability specific adaptations. One partici-pant described reasonable accommodation as:

I would say in short, doing their best to make a wheelchair user or other students withdisabilities welcome into the university. That may mean test arrangements or adapta-tion of dormitory room or whatever. Whatever the university can do reasonably withinits abilities and resources.

All campus residents had specific adaptations done in their dorm facilities.According to these students, adaptations were needed in many situations butthey all considered it as routine for them. They also felt that such adaptationsmight be useful to other wheelchair users. They all, however, believed thattheir school was making serious efforts to provide a level playing field for all,with opportunities to participate in various academic and social activities.They expressed a genuine intent to want to belong to the university commu-nity and blend into the system, but indicated that they might never achievethat goal of total social integration during their intended time of educationalexperience. However, most of the participants were optimistic about thefuture of wheelchair users in higher education.

Some participants shared that in a large university such as theirs, decisionmaking took a lot of time, which affected speedy implementation of adapta-tions, and they related this to the procedural bureaucracy associated with largeorganizations. Most participants thought that their stay in the universityserved as a learning experience for the disability services. On the whole, mostparticipants believed that their university was responsible in accommodatingtheir specific disability-related needs and making the effort necessary to assistthem in their academic and social integration into its community. Most of theparticipants were optimistic about their future at the university. They believedthat by taking adequate action to accommodate more wheelchair users into itssystem, the university could help integrate them into its system.

Participant responses often referred to the concerns of the universitytowards student wheelchair users to various services available through the dis-ability services. The university’s disability services varied from providing phys-ical help and financial assistance, to advocacy and referral services.Participants suggested recruitment strategies such as preregistration interviewsby disability services and mandatory campus visits by students with disabilitiesprior to enrolment.

University community

The participants identified faculty, fellow students and non-teaching person-nel as the university community. They reported both pleasant and unpleasantexperiences with the faculty. There were individual differences among facultymembers; some seemed sensitive and some uncaring. All participants believed

100 Paul

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 100

that their interaction with faculty who had positive attitudes towards themincreased their satisfaction with the university and strengthened their studentlife experience. Their interactions with non-teaching staff (maintenance,security, clerical and other non-teaching staff) were generally friendly and itwas reasoned that this was because of the momentary nature of encounters.Even encounters with lift operators and security personnel were recalled, andtheir awareness level was considered to be higher than that of faculty and fel-low students. Many students recalled some open and friendly encounters withfellow peers and they also recalled some insensitive encounters. They equatedthese encounters to fear of the unknown and expressed concern, saying thatthose students who did not make an effort and avoided any opportunity tointeract, may turn out to be insensitive toward disability-related issues in thefuture. An interesting point was made by one participant, who stated thatsensitivity of an individual is often situational:

In my opinion mostly the whole thing with fellow students is no big deal. Very cooper-ative, sensitive most of the time. Again sometimes they are not sensitive at all . . . oncein the computer lab . . . they were jumping spots . . . it was just human nature I guess,everybody was just pressed for time . . . and it was the end of semester . . . so there wasno sensitivity toward anybody in a wheelchair or anything like that . . . I think theirbehaviour is often context bound . . . say, for example, if you see you are almost late forthe class you push over anybody you can push over to get into the elevator . . . but ifyou are leaving class it’s a whole different situation, you are more courteous and let peo-ple in. That’s what I mean.

Another participant described, ‘each department should strive for competi-tiveness without compromising the genuine needs of its students with disabili-ties’. All participants considered faculty–student, student–administration,student–student and student–staff interactions as an integral part of their uni-versity life with or without the wheelchair. They were positive regardless of thevarying degree of awareness and social integration; they were ready to do what-ever it takes to complete their degree and move on into the broader society.

Self promotion – a much-needed business tool

This theme describes the participants’ views regarding their individualresponsibility to the university community. They believed that whatever awheelchair user does will somehow become a precedent in the future for otherwheelchair users. Some thought that wheelchair users are not as active or asoutspoken as they should be, which contributes to their invisibility in the uni-versity and society. One participant described:

Although general awareness is growing . . . we are not as active or outspoken aboutthings as we should be . . . we need to speak up. . . . I think you also have to be outspo-ken and reactive if you want to eliminate negative attitudes . . . sometimes the schooldoesn’t know what your needs are so that they can offer it to you.


OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 101

102 Paul

According to these participants, sometimes things are harder not becausethe school makes it more difficult, but because of uncontrollable factors such asinexperience and ignorance among university community and older buildingsand other architectural barriers which make physical accessibility difficult.Some participants thought that wheelchair users need to take the university’sgenuine limitations into consideration and be careful about demanding toomuch, which can be misinterpreted as abusing rights. One participant said:

I only ask what is needed for me. If my wheelchair use prevents me from using some-thing, I would look and see if there is an easier way to accommodate that. . . . I hope allstudents do the same. . . . I think it also depends on the individual. Some people maymake it a big deal and someone else will bring up the matter quietly to proper peopleand get it done.

However, participants expressed concern over the difficulty associated withwhere to draw a balance in these kinds of issues. According to them there hasto be a cooperative effort between the institution and wheelchair users inhelping them integrate into the university community.

These participants felt that it is important for students with disabilities totake responsibility for themselves in meeting their needs and goals in a uni-versity by seeking out help and standing up for their rights whenever neces-sary. The participants in this study acknowledged that at times they wereignored in the university, which necessitated them to speak up for their needsand rights. Their responses seemed to be focused on how they could help oneanother, as well as future wheelchair users, to function in the university envi-ronment more efficiently.

Experience is a wholesome process

Experience is a wholesome process was the meta-theme that was interwoventhroughout all the themes. For these student participants, a satisfactory uni-versity life experience went beyond academics. They considered their experi-ence to be a process and their degree to be a product. Most participantsconsidered satisfaction in the university and success in their personal lives tobe interconnected. According to these participants GPA was not the onlyindicator of a productive university experience. One participant explained:

Grades is just one piece of the puzzle. It is not the only one . . . you have to feel goodabout your whole stay in the university. . . . Did you like the school? How were the pro-fessors, students, your department people, how much involved you became with yourschool’s activities and things . . . of course grades are very important. It will help you toget a job or continue higher studies, but it is not the only thing which dictates yourexperience with a school.

Involvement of disability services, teacher–student interactions, peer inter-actions and social life in college have all been mentioned by these students to

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 102


be important. One participant summed it up in one sentence by saying ‘thewhole experience as the ability to live on my own in the dormitory, carry anormal course load, manage my physical needs with or without the help of anattendant, and manage my finances and being able to compete with other stu-dents in school and blend in with the university community as much as I can’.Another participant described his experience with the school as an opportuni-ty to feel like a college student without having to think of his disability first.

The participants in this study felt a strong relationship between beingindependent in daily school-related activities and its subsequent impact onquality of life. For most participants becoming successful in the university wasseen as a precursor to success in society at large. According to them, a univer-sity is an environment where one tries to gain an education and learn to be asuccessful citizen. They believed that success starts with one’s education,which subsequently affects one’s ability to become a successful citizen. Onesuch response was:

I think your experience in school extends into your life long after you finish school . . .it carries on to getting a job and being successful in whatever you do with your life . . . itprepares you for your life after school . . . the whole experience should guide you towhat you want to become.

Participants considered their university experience as a process that eachindividual has to go through in meeting the goal of securing a degree. Allexpressed the desire to blend in with the university community in spite oftheir disability and wheelchair use. Success in the university was described asbeing able to gain an education without excessive physical and/or attitudinalbarriers. According to the participants in this study, the ultimate balance isthat the respective interests of the college students with disabilities and theschool faculty and administrators were equally met.

Discussion

The enactment of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Educa-tion for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the Americans with Dis-abilities Act (ADA) of 1990 have all contributed to the increasing enrolmentof wheelchair users into colleges and universities across the United States.However, these efforts alone may not be enough to provide adequate integra-tion into the educational community (Rumill, 1994; Moore, 1995). The find-ings of the study demonstrated that these student wheelchair users stillencounter both physical and attitudinal barriers in university. Factors such associal life in college, adjustment to disability, services available to studentswith disabilities, teacher–student interactions and peer interactions were allconsidered extremely important to satisfactory university life. The participantschose education as a step towards success in life. According to Collins (1995),a successful university life experience goes beyond the university into the

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 103

community. These participants believed that their relationship with the uni-versity is not limited to academic education but also to preparation for lifebeyond the classroom. Building confidence and the necessary social skills ofstudents with disabilities is of equal priority to the necessary academic skillsthat prepare people to meet future challenges (Collins, 1995). The data sup-port this point, as the student participants did not consider GPA to be thesole predictor of their success and satisfaction with their university. This studypoints to a number of different issues that directly pertain to student wheel-chair users, such as the architectural accessibility of university environmentsfor wheelchair use and the need for awareness and sensitivity training in theuniversity community. Attention to these issues could increase the positiveexperience of such students and involve them in a mutual working relation-ship with the school’s faculty, administration, staff and students.

According to college impact models, institutional environment plays avital role in student life since it provides a variety of opportunities for encoun-ters with ideas and people (Astin, 1970). The influence of faculty, administra-tion, staff and other students as socializing agents shape the experiences ofstudents with disabilities. A positive influence can lead to a positive experi-ence, and a negative influence can lead to a negative experience (Kawauchi,1990; Benham, 1995; Collins, 1995). According to participants in this study,faculty with positive attitudes towards students with disabilities were morereadily able to accommodate their needs. The experience of these specific par-ticipants calls for a cooperative relationship between students with disabilitiesand faculty, administration, staff and students of the university. The universitycommunity should facilitate access to an environment for student wheelchairusers to achieve academic and social integration. It is also their legal responsi-bility to do so.

Earlier studies have pointed to a direct connection between school facili-ties, student satisfaction and student adjustment. The better the facilities andaccommodation, the more satisfied the students. The more satisfied the stu-dents, the longer they stayed in the system (West et al., 1993). According tothese participants, physical accessibility to most buildings and facilities of theuniversity was critical for their integration within the university environment,but in some settings these problems were difficult to remedy. According toAstin’s theory of involvement, the individual student plays a central role inuniversity encounters (Astin, 1985). Change is not seen as merely the conse-quence of collegiate impact on a student. Rather, the individual determinesthe extent and nature of growth according to the quality of effort or involve-ment with the resources provided by the institution (Astin, 1985). Accordingto Conyers (1996), knowledge of the ADA and self-advocacy skills are essen-tial to students with disabilities in order to become successful after college.Barnes (1994) challenges students with disabilities to become an organizedbody to speak out on campus issues, provide one another with a support net-work, become less dependent on the university’s service department, and

104 Paul

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 104

increase disability awareness on campus and in the larger community. Partici-pants in this study also identified their belief that wheelchair users must speakup for themselves and actively use the opportunities presented in the universi-ty environment. Brown (1991) suggests that students bring with them a set ofbackground characteristics, such as their personality traits, aptitudes, careerpreferences, aspirations and values. Participants in this study varied in theirindividual goals and expectations from their interaction with the university.Some participants wanted to have a cultural experience whereas others justwanted to complete their degree and move on. Besides institutional charac-teristics and individual interactions, the participants also indicated the impor-tance of a personal support network in their adjustment to attending theuniversity in a wheelchair. Their responses were in line with the results of astudy by Allison (1994) which examined the utilization of reasonable accom-modations for university students with disabilities and their relationship tograduation rates. Although there were no substantial differences betweengraduates and disenrollees in terms of accommodation usefulness, there weresignificant differences in terms of social support network. Drop-outs indicatedlack of social support (friends, family and faculty) as one contributing factor.

In conclusion, through these themes the participants suggest that, in a uni-versity environment, non-disabled individuals need to be mindful of the pres-ence of their wheelchair-using counterparts. Competition may be inevitablein a university, but cooperation from faculty, students and administration canlead to a more effective educational experience for these wheelchair users.Proper respect from faculty and other students toward the abilities and skillsof a wheelchair user are part of this cooperation. Understanding on the part ofschool’s faculty and administration in including wheelchair users in pro-grammes and providing required support services may enable these partici-pants to achieve their academic-related goals and social involvement.

Implications for higher education and occupational therapy

Success in higher education is achieved when students with disabilitiesenter/re-enter the university, complete their academic goals and preparethemselves for meaningful life roles after school. The findings of this studycan increase the awareness of the professionals in higher education about thisparticular population. It can assist faculty and administration with usefulinformation to advise students and assist them in making the many decisionsrequired of post-secondary students to succeed in a university setting. As witheverything in their lives, persons with disabilities are less able to act sponta-neously because of constraints imposed by the environment. Many activities,such as going to a university, must be planned in greater detail to have suffi-cient time to remove obstacles proactively. Providing appropriate services tostudents with disabilities in a university includes assessment of their needs,which involves the students in the decision-making process as well. Part of


OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 105

the disability service assessment could include determining what would beneeded for a student with a particular disability to function at a level of maxi-mum independence. One of the goals of the disability service department isthat students with disabilities learn to identify areas that might present diffi-culties and to problem solve in order to decrease their difficulties brought onby the use of a wheelchair. Therefore, evaluation should be conducted in con-junction with the student client. An example would be a visit to the comput-er lab to determine if the lab environment needs to be restructured orrearranged for the student to be able to perform his job. In residence halls thestudent and disability service personnel could check to see if there is sufficientroom to manoeuvre the wheelchair or modify the room by removing/rearrang-ing the furniture to increase the space available for wheelchair manoeuvre.

The information collected through this study also suggests that universitypersonnel may find the use of this form of in-depth interviewing a valuablecontribution to their evaluation and service provision for collecting studenthistory and for establishing service goals in conjunction with students’ acade-mic and social goals in the university environment. Because of the continuingnature of the many barriers and obstacles the wheelchair user will have to dealwith while at university, the administration could work with these students toensure that they develop and use several strategies to function efficiently inthe university setting. Most participants considered disability services of theuniversity as very important in meeting their disability-related needs. TheState Department of Health Care may be able to assist the institution’s dis-ability services in evaluating student needs and suggesting accommodations inself-care and academic-related activities. In a university, students may needassistance in identifying necessary accommodations. Healthcare professionalssuch as the occupational therapists who are knowledgeable about the ADAcould, in collaboration with the institution’s disability services, determinewhich accommodations, if any, will be necessary in residence halls, class-rooms, transportation services, public accommodations provided by the uni-versity, public services and employment. The nature of a university is suchthat it is responsible for complying with the ADA regulations more thanalmost any other type of agency or business. Occupational therapists’ traininguniquely qualifies them to help implement this compliance. Knowledge oftask and activity analysis, training in restructuring environments, and makingor helping others to make adaptive equipment to accommodate inconve-niences of a disability are only a small part of our professional knowledge thatcan assist both students with disabilities and the university.

Recommendations for future research

This study provided general, broad-based preliminary information about theuniversity life experience of six student wheelchair users. Additional researchneeds to be conducted in several areas in order to obtain more specific informa-

106 Paul

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 106

tion. Since institutional environments differ among universities and collegesand institutional characteristics influence student change, separate studiesshould be conducted in more than one institution. For example, this study wasconducted in a large metropolitan university. A similar study conducted in asmall rural college (different geographic locations – for example rural vs urban)might bring in new information valuable to educational institutions located inrural environments. Postgraduate and undergraduate students prioritize differ-ent factors as indicators of a satisfactory university life experience. Undergradu-ate students tend to give higher priority to social life than postgraduatestudents. There may be differences in reasons for pursuing higher educationbetween males and females. A separate study focusing specifically on under-graduate experience in a wheelchair may be extremely useful to student wheel-chair users in high school who are contemplating pursuing higher studies.

The extent of physical involvement affects the level of independence. Forexample personal care attendants were considered as part of the support net-work by some participants. What is the extent of the contribution of personalcare attendants to the independence level of student wheelchair users in theuniversity? Studies involving qualitative interviews of personal care atten-dants could reveal their perception and add richness to the data. Most partici-pants in this study considered family to be an important support network.Studies involving interviews with family members might provide additionaldescriptive information about the perspectives of students and their lovedones. There can be individual specific differences between participants interms of their academic goals, career goals and degree of involvement withtheir support system. Studies that examine individual personalities and therelationships with their support systems and educational goals may give valu-able information to the university community to understand these students ata deeper level.

Finally, an ethnographic perspective would enrich what is already knownabout the day-to-day activities of these students in the university. Participantobservation would provide a means of delineating and recording what goes onin the university environment. In light of understanding and coexisting withstudents with disabilities and wheelchair users, a clearer understanding oftheir personal support network, faculty–student interactions, peer interac-tions, interactions with the disability services office and interactions withadministrators is needed. A qualitative interview study involving all the mem-bers of the students’ support network can provide a global picture of the uni-versity life of students as well as the influence of their support network. Also,ethnographic interview studies involving employers of these wheelchair usersmay be able to tap into areas of job skills, work adjustment, career develop-ment and career competence. The above are a few recommendations in anarea that needs extensive study in order to provide further information to theuniversity community in making the educational environment effectivelyconducive to all wheelchair users.


OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 107

As a final thought, in order to enhance academic and social integration ofstudent wheelchair users in higher educational institutions, a clearer under-standing of their university life in a wheelchair is needed if higher educationalinstitutions and students with disabilities are to effectively address their con-cerns. It is hoped that the results of this study will suggest significant opportu-nities both to researchers who wish to study the college student changeprocess and to administrators who seek to design academic and social pro-grammes intended to promote students’ educational growth. The informationcould further guide non-disabled students, teachers, administrators and othernon-academic staff of the university community in understanding and dealingwith student wheelchair users in an unobtrusive and inconspicuous manner.Most importantly, by listening to what these student participants say and do,this information could further guide students with disabilities who are wheel-chair users to knowing what to expect in a university environment, and howto best advocate for their needs.

References

Allison LS (1994). Utilization of reasonable accommodations for university students with dis-abilities and their relationship to graduation rates. Unpublished masters thesis, CaliforniaState University.

Anderson MPI (1993). Social support and barriers to post-secondary education: Experience ofstudents with physical disabilities. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Alberta atEdmonton, Canada.

Astin A (1970). The methodology of research on college impact (I). Sociology of Education 43:223–54.

Astin A (1985). Achieving Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of Priorities andPractices in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnes SG (1994). The interrelationships between self-esteem, utilization of support services,academic progress, and academic achievement for college students with disabilities. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Benham NE (1995). Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding specific disabilities and theAmericans with Disabilities Act. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of SouthernMississippi.

Bogdan RC, Biklen SK (1992). Qualitative Research for Education (2nd edn). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Bowman OJ, Marzouk DK (1990). Using the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 toempower university students with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy46: 450–6.

Brown D (1991). Access in education: Assisting students from dependence to independence.Journal of Post-secondary Education and Disability 9(3): 264–8.

Chickering A (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Collins KD (1995). A model of college adjustment for students with physical disabilities.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Conyers LM (1996). The effectiveness of an integrated career intervention for college students

with and without disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Ely M, Anzul M, Friedman T, Garner D, Steinmetz AM (1991). Doing Qualitative Research:

108 Paul

OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 108

Circles Within Circles. New York: Falmer Press.English KM (1993). The role of support services in the integration and retention of college stu-

dents who are hearing-impaired. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont GraduateSchool and San Diego State University.

Flowers CR (1993). Academic achievement, academic persistence and acceptance of disabilityamong students with disabilities at a post-secondary institution. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Glaser B, Strauss AL (1973). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for QualitativeResearch (2nd edn). Chicago: Aldine.

Graham P, Weingarden S, Murphy P (1991). School reintegration: A rehabilitation goal forspinal cord injured adolescents. Rehabilitation Nursing 6: 122–7.

Hirschhorn BE (1992). The relationship among school accessibility, student locus of controland the satisfaction of New York City high school wheelchair users. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, New York University.

Kawauchi K (1990). The structure of college students’ attitudes toward people with physicaldisabilities. Japanese Journal of Special Education 28(3): 25–33.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Lofland J, Lofland L (1984). Analyzing Social Settings (2nd edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Moore HL (1995). Beyond architectural barriers: Accommodating college students with dis-

abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seattle University.Mulcahey MJ (1992). Returning to school after a spinal cord injury: Perspectives from four ado-

lescents. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 46: 305–12. Pascarella E (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development:

A critical review and synthesis. In Smart J (Ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theoryand Research (Vol.1). New York: Agathon, pp.1–61.

Pascarella E, Terenzini P (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights fromTwenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry W (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: AScheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Richards TJ, Richards L (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In Denzin NK, Lin-coln YS (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 445–62.

Rumill PD (1994). The ‘win-win’ approach to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act:Preparing college students with disabilities for career-entry placements after graduation.Journal of Post-secondary Education and Disability 11(1): 15–19.

Strauss A, Corbin J (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An overview. In Denzin NK, Lin-coln YS (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 273–85.

Synatschk KJO (1994). Successful college students with learning disabilities: A cross-caseanalysis from a life-span developmental perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Texas at Austin.

Thomas J (1993). Doing Critical Ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Tinto V (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.

Review of Educational Research 45: 89–125.Tinto V (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chica-

go: University of Chicago Press.West M, Kregel J, Getzel EE, Zhu M, Ipsen SM, Martin ED (1993). Beyond Section 504: Satis-

faction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher education. ExceptionalChildren 59: 456–67.

Address correspondence to Stanley Paul, PhD, OTR/L, Assistant Professor, Department ofOccupational Therapy, College of Health and Human Services, Western Michigan University,1201 Oliver Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA. Email: [email protected]


OTI 6(2) 3rd 15/12/05 2:35 pm Page 109

students with disabilities in post-secondary education: the perspectives of wheelchair users

Documents