Higher Education Accessibility Information in Practice: A Report on European Universities

Study Overview and Context

The study, titled "Higher education accessibility information in practice. A report on the accessibility of European Universities," provides a comprehensive evaluation of the accessibility landscape for students with disabilities across higher education institutions in Europe.
The research draws from two primary data sources: - Desk Research & Audit: An examination of publicly available information and an accessibility audit of university websites for $171$ institutions across $38$ European countries conducted between January and March $2023$ . - Online Survey: Distributed to accessibility/diversity offices at $124$ universities, with full responses received from $7$ institutions across $17$ different countries.
Demographic Context: Approximately $27\%$ of the European Union (EU) population lives with some form of disability. This demographic remains underrepresented in higher education; while the number of students with disabilities is increasing, only $29\%$ of individuals with disabilities achieve a tertiary degree compared to $44\%$ of their non-disabled peers.
Legal and Policy Frameworks: - European Web Accessibility Directive (WAD): Mandates accessibility standards for public sector websites. - Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A standard external to the EU but used as a comparative benchmark. - UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD): Reinforces inclusive policies and support mechanisms. - European Skills Agenda and EU Digital Education Action Plan: These initiatives allocate resources toward inclusive digital learning environments. - European Accessibility Act: Cited as the baseline for university inclusion policies.

Related Work and Existing Literature

Web Accessibility Evaluations: - Campoverde-Molina et al. (2021): A systematic review of $42$ papers evaluating $9,140$ universities worldwide found that none were fully compliant with WCAG $2.0$ standards. - Macako\check{g}lu et al. (2023): Identified that North American university websites generally demonstrate greater adherence to accessibility and user experience guidelines compared to those in Europe and Oceania. - Fakrudeen et al. (2021): Evaluated $134$ university home pages in Middle Eastern countries (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) and found no correlation between a university's global ranking and its accessibility compliance.
Higher Education Access Services: - The Case-by-Case Model: Traditionally, accessibility has been reactive, requiring individual students to request specific materials (e.g., modified textbooks). - The Accessibility Ecosystem: Proposed by Mack et al., this is defined as a collaborative network of faculty, staff, and institutional leaders addressing accessibility collectively rather than in isolation. - Inhibiting Factors: Research by Fern\acute{a}ndez-Batanero et al. and Fennelly-Atkinson & LaPrairie highlights a lack of faculty training, limited access to adapted materials, and a lack of awareness regarding existing accessibility policies.

Methodology

Triangulation Approach: The study employed three phases to ensure reliability and validity by cross-verifying data from multiple perspectives.
Phase 1: Automated Website Audit: - Audited the top-ranked European universities based on the Times Higher Education report. - Universities per country (sample): Austria ( $6$ ), Poland ( $7$ ), UK ( $6$ ), Spain ( $6$ ), etc. - Tool: Google Lighthouse, an open-source automated tool that audits performance and accessibility based on user impact assessments. - Regional Grouping: Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern, and the UK and Ireland (based on classification by Royal Berglee).
Phase 2: Desk Research: Qualitative thematic analysis of support services listed on websites, supported by ChatGPTv3 as an organizational tool to categorize services.
Phase 3: Online Survey: A $28$ -question survey distributed to $124$ offices via email between April $14$ and June $1$ , $2023$ .

Results: Website Accessibility Audit

General Scores: The average accessibility score across European universities was relatively high at $87.36$ ( $SD = 7.46$ , $max. = 100$ , $min. = 47$ ).
Regional Disparities: A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of geographical region: $F(4, 166) = 11.60$ , $p < 0.001$ , $\eta^2 = 0.219$ . - Northern Countries: Significantly higher accessibility ( $M = 95.9$ , $SE = 1.83$ ). - UK and Ireland: Higher accessibility ( $M = 92.1$ , $SE = 2.74$ ) compared to Eastern and Southern regions. - Eastern Countries: Lower accessibility ( $M = 83.1$ , $SE = 1.22$ ). - Southern Countries: Lower accessibility ( $M = 84.1$ , $SE = 1.65$ ). - Western Countries: Mid-range accessibility ( $M = 88.5$ , $SE = 1.54$ ).
Common Accessibility Issues Identified (Categorical Mean Number of Issues per Region): - A two-way mixed-design ANOVA: $F(3.33, 553.15) = 33.72$ , $p < 0.001$ , $\eta^2 = 0.137$ . - Names and Labels: The most common issue (e.g., buttons without accessible names, lack of alternative text); $M = 0.94$ , $SE = 0.08$ . Highest in Eastern ( $M = 1.48$ ) and Southern ( $M = 1.42$ ) countries. - Color Contrast: Foreground and background contrast issues; $M = 0.54$ , $SE = 0.04$ . Highest in Eastern countries ( $M = 0.80$ ). - Navigation: Structure through websites; $M = 0.46$ , $SE = 0.05$ . - ARIA-related issues: Significant differences found between Northern ( $M = 0.15$ ) and Southern ( $M = 0.73$ ) institutions. - Tables and Lists: Least frequent issue; $M = 0.01$ , $SE = 0.03$ .

Results: Support Services (Desk Research Findings)

Visibility of Information: - $100\%$ of UK university websites listed accessibility offices with identifiable contact info. - $94\%$ of Western, $70\%$ of Northern, $63\%$ of Eastern, and $58\%$ of Southern European universities made this information visible.
Support Categories and Specific Examples: - Learning and Note-taking: Teaching adjustments, talking books, adapted course literature, assistive technology (e.g., E-reading rooms). - Examination Support: Enlarged font sizes, extended time, human readers/scribes, separate exam rooms. - Coaching and Counselling: Psychological, career, and social counselling; mental health advice. - Individual Mentoring: Personalized study programs, assistance in applying for aid, advice on organizing studies. - Legal and Financial Support: Legal representation, tuition fee remissions, housing subsidies, mediation with staff.
Assistive Technologies Available: - Electronic reading magnifiers with speech output. - Text readers and scanning pens. - Ergonomic mice and keyboards. - Induction loops, FM systems (transmitting audio via radio waves), and portable hearing loops. - Blind-friendly maps and campus mobility training.

Results: Online Survey Findings

Office Infrastructure: - Offices were established between $1980$ and $2022$ . - Staffing: Typically fewer than $5$ permanent people. One UK institution reported more than $15$ . - Budget: Most offices (5 out of 7) have an annual budget of less than $\text{EUR } 50,000$ . Funding primarily comes from the institution, supplemented occasionally by European Social Funds or government grants.
Student Representation by Disability Type (Institutional Frequency): - Frequently/Very Frequently Represented: Mental health conditions ( $7$ institutions), Dyslexia ( $5$ ), ADHD ( $4$ ), Physical disability ( $4$ ). - Occasionally Represented: Autism Spectrum Disorder ( $3$ ), Blind/vision impairment ( $3$ ), Deaf/hard of hearing ( $3$ ), Neurological conditions like Epilepsy ( $3$ ). - Rarely/Never Represented: Speech and language communication disorders, Dyscalculia, Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD/Dyspraxia).
Information Policy: - Universities inform students about services primarily before registration ( $8$ responses) and during studies ( $7$ ). - Information is shared via webpages ( $9$ ), face-to-face ( $8$ ), and open days ( $6$ ).
Identified Needs of Accessibility Offices: - Human Resources: Greatest need for specialists in mental health and neurodiversity. - Financial Support: To purchase equipment. - Liaison/Collaboration: Better coordination with academic colleagues to implement adjustments and change attitudes. - Physical Environment: Improved emergency evacuation plans and more barrier-free places.

Discussion and Critical Implications

The Saturation Principle: Researchers acknowledge the low survey response rate but apply the "incremental approach to saturation," where data collection is considered sufficient based on researcher judgment rather than a fixed threshold of responses.
Regional Divide: The study confirms a persistent gap between Northern/UK regions and Eastern/Southern Europe in both digital accessibility compliance and visibility of support resources.
Barriers to Participation: The low response rate from offices themselves indicates that professionals in student support are often overstretched, reflecting limited institutional resources.
Visibility Normalization: Increasing the presence of people with disabilities on campus is argued to help break the cycle of low awareness, normalizing accessibility needs for all students and future workforces.

Recommendations

Visibility Enhancement: Accessibility offices should be prominently featured on homepages with clear links to contact info, assistive tech descriptions, and student testimonials.
Mandatory Training: Implement mandatory training for all faculty and staff on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles and creating accessible digital content.
Increased Investment: Funding should be allocated for hiring specialists and procuring up-to-date hardware, such as speech-to-text software and mobility aids.
Collaborative Platform: Establish a European-wide digital repository for sharing research findings, guidelines, training materials, and case studies to help under-resourced regions adopt proven strategies without the need for trial and error.