There is a growing body of European/international academic literature documenting the experiences of disabled staff within higher education (for key texts, see Brown, 2021; Burke & Byrne, 2020; Dolmage, 2017). This evidence presents a consistent picture of exclusion, with disabled staff routinely experiencing structural inequalities (e.g., inaccessible infrastructure, job precarity etc.), as well as negative attitudes from students and staff (Brewer, 2022; Merchant et al., 2020). This literature also reveals that exclusion reported by disabled staff in higher education is not a new phenomenon. However, when considering the pace of change within the higher education sector as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, such as in terms of students and staff having to modify their teaching and learning practices from in person to online, research is beginning to shine a light on how Coronavirus-related challenges encountered by disabled staff might be adding to, and exacerbating, the exclusion they already encounter (Hannam-Swain & Bailey, 2021; Parfitt et al., 2021). 

The bulk of research exploring exclusionary practices within higher education focuses on disabled students, and as such, there are concerns that the valuable insights of disabled staff are being disregarded (Merchant et al., 2020). This paper, presented by disabled academics in the fields of Disability Studies and Education, argues that disregarding the insights of disabled staff is one such example of the systemic and long-term nature of exclusion they face within higher education. Moreover, we argue in this paper that the experiences and insights of disabled staff in pandemic higher education have been underutilised when implementing strategies designed to promote inclusivity within the higher education sector in a ‘post-pandemic’ world. To make our arguments, we share our empirical work exploring disabled staff experiences of the higher education sector during the Coronavirus pandemic. Our research questions for this research were: what are disabled people’s experiences of navigating pandemic higher education? (RQ1), and what are participants’ recommendations for promoting inclusive change in a pandemic and post-pandemic higher education sector? (RQ2).

Our findings reveal a mixed picture in terms of how disabled staff are navigating the pandemic academy. Many staff appreciated the freedom and autonomy to work from home, which in turn, promoted health benefits (e.g., reduced fatigue due to not having to commute to work). However, participants also reported considerable difficulties in navigating the isolation of home working, and the lack of awareness from non-disabled colleagues regarding the need for accessibility. Moreover, participants were concerned at what they perceived to be limited communication between the academy and disabled staff regarding what an inclusive ‘post-pandemic’ higher education sector could be. As such, participants were worried that the inclusive practices that had been enacted during the pandemic era would be erased in favour of reverting back to traditional ways of pre-pandemic working.

We apply theoretical ideas of ableism to our findings to draw attention to disabled people’s experiences of higher education, as well as their strategies for change. Ableism within the context of academia describes the systemic higher education processes and procedures that place value on the ‘able body’ and ‘able mind’, and as such, devalue disabled people’s bodies and those from other marginalised communities (Dolmage, 2017). This ableism permeates the entirety of academic culture (e.g., education and infrastructure) to such an extent that barriers become ‘invisible’: hidden in plain sight. Individuals who can ‘overcome’ these ableist barriers are perceived as valuable because of their gifts and qualities for academia, rather than the sector recognising that these individuals are merely prototypical of what an ‘expected’ person within higher education is supposed to be (i.e., ‘able-bodied’ and ‘able-minded’) (Taylor & Shallish, 2019).

This paper will share empirical data from three different phases of our research: an online survey; semi-structured interviews; and an ‘expert panel’. For the online survey, which was open to disabled staff from around the World, participants were asked to share their experiences of navigating pandemic-era higher education, as well as their recommendations for building a more inclusive ‘post-pandemic’ academy. The semi-structured interviews with disabled staff expanded upon the online survey findings in greater depth. For instance, participants were asked to describe their thoughts on how the higher education sector could better work with disabled people to become more inclusive in a post-pandemic landscape. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. The ‘expert panel’ consisted of a group of disabled staff and non-disabled allies who were all interested in disability inclusion within higher education. Expert panel members met collaboratively for focus group-style sessions, each lasting approximately two hours. For these sessions, panel members were invited to create a subjective piece using a variety of creative/malleable materials, such as drawing, plasticine and blocks, which demonstrated their accounts of pandemic, and imagined post-pandemic experiences of disabled people within the academy. Panel members were also encouraged to share the meaning and inspiration behind their created piece, such as what issues they were encountering in pandemic-era higher education, and how these translated into the creation of their piece. The purpose of using creative/malleable materials was to allow individual panel members to create their own piece, but potentially modify or redesign them after hearing the experiences of others in each session, for instance, if another member offered additional insights or different perspectives. Through panel members sharing their creative pieces, and listening to others’ experiences and feedback, the expert panels collectively discussed what an inclusive post-pandemic academy might look like, and what recommendations the higher education sector could take forward.

The Coronavirus pandemic presents a unique opportunity for the higher education sector to learn from the ableist mistakes of its past, which have placed disabled staff at a significant disadvantage when compared to their non-disabled colleagues (Read et al., 2020). Our findings reveal that while disabled staff have reported progress in terms of disability inclusion through the pandemic (e.g., in terms of the flexibility afforded to disabled staff who want to work from home), traditional ableist rhetoric and practices remain. In particular, disabled staff were concerned that the voices and experiences of disabled people had been underutilised or even disregarded in pandemic-recovery decision making. In turn, participants felt that institutions were ignorant to the numerous learned strategies that disabled people have developed for navigating ableist barriers in higher education, both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic era. This fear was evidenced in the felt belief that the stance taken towards pandemic recovery by the higher education sector appeared to reflect a desire to go back to the ‘normality’ of pre-pandemic working: working in which disabled staff were routinely excluded. This return to pre-pandemic ways of working risks undermining or erasing the positive gains that have been achieved during this period. To build a truly inclusive higher education sector, disabled staff recommended that institutions fully listen to, and engage with, their experiences, and apply their learned knowledge of navigating exclusion to all pandemic recovery decisions. Moreover, participants recommended that higher education institutions recognise that the pandemic period has promoted many positive and inclusive ways of working for all university staff and students, such as the ability to work flexibly from home, and that these changes should be fully embedded in the ‘post-pandemic’ academic world.

Brewer, G. (2022). Disability in higher education: Investigating identity, stigma and disclosure amongst academics. Open University Press. Brown, N. (Ed.) (2021). Lived experiences of ableism in academia: Strategies for inclusion in higher education. Policy Press. Burke, C., & Byrne, B. (Eds.) (2020). Social research and disability: Developing inclusive research spaces for disabled researchers. Routledge. Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press. Hannam-Swain, S., & Bailey, C. (2021). Considering Covid-19: Autoethnographic reflections on working practices in a time of crisis by two disabled UK academics. Social Sciences and Humanities Open 4 (100145). Merchant, W., Read, S., D’Evelyn, S., Miles, C., & Williams, V. (2020). The insider view: Tackling disabling practices in higher education institutions. Higher Education, 80(2), 273-287. Parfitt, A., Read, S., & Bush, T. (2021). Can compassion provide a lifeline for navigating Coronavirus (COVID-19) in higher education? Pastoral Care in Education, 39(3), 178-191. Read, S., Parfitt, A., & Bush, T. (2020). The COVID-safe university is an opportunity to end the default ableism of academia. LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/12/10/the-covid-safe-university-is-an-opportunity-to-end-the-default-ableism-of-academia/ Taylor, A., & Shallish, L. (2019). The logic of bio-meritocracy in the promotion of higher education equity. Disability & Society, 34(7-8), 1200-1223.