The student population in Higher Education (HE) is becoming increasingly diverse, with the Netherlands being no exception (van Middelkoop et al., 2017). This changing student population raises the question of how to provide education for current and future student populations (Noppe et al., 2018). Therefore, it is no surprise that (international) governments and scholars are focusing on increasing inclusion in education (EECEA, 2022; Ainscow, 2020). HE-teachers play an important role in realizing inclusive HE (O’Shea, 2016; van Middelkoop et al., 2017). However, studies on HE-teachers’ views, images, and opinions on inclusion, in short, their understanding, are  almost absent in the academic literature (Authors et al., [under review]; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021; Shaeffer, 2019).Consequently, the following research question was developed to address this gap in knowledge:

How do teachers understand inclusive higher education in the Netherlands?

The primary objective of this paper is to report on a study that aims to gain more insight into HE-teachers’ understanding of inclusive education, while simultaneously considering their institutional context. By doing so, this research aims to offer valuable insights that can guide HE institutions (HEIs), researchers, and governments in their efforts to promote and support inclusive HE.

Currently, students that differ from the norm associated with HE students, the “traditional student” (white, male, cis-gendered, able-bodied, neurotypical, straight, following education in their home country, and recently out of secondary education), often experience more barriers for student achievement (Meerman et al., 2018). The growing diversity in HE thus does not one-on-one result in inclusive HE programs.

Besides the moral imperative for ensuring student achievement of a diverse population to decrease inequity in HE and society (Shaeffer, 2019; Lister, 2020), there are multiple educational and societal rationales. Including, but not exhaustive: the need for more HE graduates (see Council of Europe’s ‘Lisbon recognition convention’ 1997, 2016), the facilitation of critical thinking by challenging hitherto unchallenged norms in HE (Harless, 2018; Callan, 2016; Moriña, 2016), and it prepares students for the diverse and international society they will work/live in (Palfrey & Ibargüen, 2018), e.g. education adjusted to the changing society in the future.

To realize an environment in which the likelihood of student achievement is equal for everyone in the diverse student population, e.g. inclusive HE, it is essential that HEIs and HE-teachers see diversity as an asset rather than an issue (Moriña, 2016). Fortunately, HE-teachers have a positive attitude toward inclusive HE (Authors et al. under review). Because there is currently a lack of research examining the understanding of inclusive HE among HE-teachers (Authors et al., under review; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2020; Shaeffer, 2019), it remains unclear what specific aspects of inclusive HE HE-teachers hold positive attitudes toward.

In contrast to HE-teachers’ understanding, research has shown,  the influence of the institutional context on the possibilities HE-teachers feel to realize inclusive HE (Authors et al., under review; Authors et al., under review). HEIs increasingly recognize their responsibility for accessibility and equal opportunities for student achievement (Glastra & Van Middelkoop, 2018). However, HE-teachers still experience challenges in their HEI due to a felt lack of support in resources, information, and training (Authors et al. under review).

To support HE-teachers in improving inclusive learning environments, more knowledge is needed on HE-teachers’ understandings of inclusion (Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2020), while paying attention to their institutional context (Authors et al., under review).

Context and Participants The participants in this study were HE-teachers and last-year students from eight study programs spread across four HEIs in the Netherlands. Including HEIs from less researched areas in the field of inclusive HE (van Middelkoop et al., 2017) and research- and teacher intensive universities. The difference between them could influence the degree of confidence, time, resources, and interest HE-teachers have in creating inclusive HE. Per HEI, two bachelor level study programs were selected: one teacher-education program and one computer science program. Similar study subjects across the HEIs were selected to minimize the effect of the study subject on the results. Instruments Data on HE-teachers’ understandings of inclusive education was obtained through a written survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews. The use of written surveys was deemed appropriate due to the potentially sensitive nature of the topic, as it may allow participants to express their thoughts more freely in written format (Salant & Dillman, 1994). The survey was designed for this study and consisted of both open- and close-ended questions. It is based on existing surveys in the field of inclusive education (Miesera et al., 2019; Authors et al.,under review;Wekker et al., 2016), which were adapted to the Dutch higher education context and a broad definition of inclusive education, and on the outcomes of a systematic literature review of the same subject. This resulted in 33 questions divided into five parts: (1) connection to their HEI; (2) images of inclusive HE; (3) implementation of inclusive practices; (4) responsibility of their HEI; and (5) background information. All HE-teachers and last year students of the selected study programs in the academic year 2023/2024 were invited to participate in the survey through an invitation by email and through their internal communication platforms. Topic lists for the semi-structured follow-up interviews were designed based on the results of the survey and an earlier literature review by Authors et al.(under review). Participants of the survey were invited to participate in the interviews. A selection was made based on a spread among the different study programs. Analysis The survey results were transferred to SPSS and assessed for missing data and data division. The open-ended questions were first coded before comparisons between the participating groups and HEIs were made. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to a member check (Merriam, 1998). The first author coded the transcripts in two-phases, which were reviewed by the second author.

The outcomes are on HE-teachers’ and their students’ understanding of inclusive HE and inclusive educational practice. The findings on the understanding of inclusive education in these groups were compared to one another. It is expected that the student population of the study program in question, the geographical area, and the HE-teachers previous experiences influence their understanding of inclusive HE. The support felt by HE-teachers from the study program where they teach and their higher education institution was considered in the analyses of the identified understandings. In a systematic literature review of the same topic (Authors et al., under review) and an explorative study (Authors et al., under review), we found that HE-teachers often felt a lack of support from their higher education institution. Furthermore, HE-teachers were often isolated and had limited knowledge of one-another’s educational practices (Authors et al., under review). With this study, more insight is gathered on the felt support at the specific higher education institution, but also, through follow-up interviews, more in-depth knowledge on the connection between higher education institution’s policy and communication, HE-teachers’ understanding of inclusive HE, and HE-teachers’ students’ experience of inclusive HE is presented. With these outcomes, we aim to reduce the knowledge gap on HE-teachers’ understanding of inclusive HE and to contribute to realizing inclusive HE for their students. The latter aids in more equity in HE (Shaeffer, 2029; Lister et al., 2020), while also preparing students to work together in a diverse society (Palfrey & Ibargüen, 2018). Follow-up research based on the outcomes are on interventions at the specific HEIs participating in this study and generalizability of the designed instruments in wider European contexts.

Authors et al., under review Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Callan, E. 2020. “Education in Safe and Unsafe Spaces.” Philosophical Inquiry in Education 24 (1): 64–78. doi:10.7202/1070555ar. Glastra, F & van Middelkoop, D. (2018). Studiesucces in het hoger onderwijs: van rendement naar maatschappelijke relevantie. Eburon. Harless, J. 2018. “Safe Space in the College Classroom: Contact, Dignity, and a Kind of Publicness.” Ethics and Education: 1–17. doi:10.1080/17449642.2018.1490116. Lister, K., Pearson, V. K., Collins, T. D., & Davies, G. J. (2020). Evaluating inclusion in distance learning: a survey of university staff attitudes, practices and training needs. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1828048 Meerman, M., de Jong, M., & Wolff, R. (2018). Studiesucces en etnische diversiteit. In F. Glastra, & D. van Middelkoop (Eds.), Studiesucces in het hoger onderwijs: van rendement naar maatschappelijke relevantie (pp. 89-139). Eburon. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case learning applications in education. Jossey-Bass. Miesera, S., DeVries, J. M., Jungjohann, J., & Gebhardt, M. (2019). Correlation between attitudes, concerns, self-efficacy and teaching intentions in inclusive education evidence from German pre-service teachers using international scales. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1471-3802.12432 Moriña, A. 2016. “Inclusive Education in Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 32 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964. O’Shea, S., Lysaght, P., Roberts, J., & Harwood, V. (2015). Shifting the blame in higher education – social inclusion and deficit discourses. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(2), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087388 Palfrey, J. and A. Ibargüen. 2018. Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education. Reprint ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: a prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09598-w Stentiford, L., & Koutsouris, G. (2020). What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2245–2261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716322 van Middelkoop, D., Ballafkih, H. & Meerman, M. (2017). Understanding diversity: a Dutch case study on teachers’ attitudes towards their diverse student population. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, (9)1. DOI 10.1186/s40461-016-0045-9 Wekker, G., Slootman, M., Icaza, R., Jansen, H., & Vázquez, R. (2016). Let's do diversity: Report of the Diversity Commission University of Amsterdam. University of Amsterdam. Geraadpleegd op 16 januari 2024, 178892_Diversity_Commission_Report_2016.pdf (uva.nl)