This conference paper will offer a literature review on the most recent findings of the current Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion research in the context of higher education students with disability, especially with a focus on students with neurodiversity in Hungary. This presentation will summarize the basic principles of neurodiversity, explaining why diversity and equity indeed contribute to the academic excellence of all universities. Despite the affirmative action received by those whose special education diagnosis was documented, due to the stigma on IEPs in our orthodox education system (Gallagher Et Al., 2003), our hypothesis is that many of our students with learning differences come without diagnosis and attend university without accommodation and support services, which may result in tangible disadvantages that could be tracked with the help of our database.  Neurodiversity as an approach challenges ableism (Armstrong, 2011) by boldly asserting, that in a learning community, individuals are not solely limited by their own physical, sensory, or speech disabilities nor by their mental or cognitive developmental states, but they are in fact primarily disabled by their environment, and the lack of university-wide inclusion policies which do not accept and/or not able to adapt to unique learning needs (NTOMBELA-MAHMANGU, 2019). The social model of disability has allowed a structural analysis of the social exclusion of people with disabilities and demand for accessibility and reasonable accommodations from all HE institutions (HASLER, 1993; SHAKESPEARE & WATSON, 2001). The results of academic research support the paradigm shift: instead of pathologizing our university citizens who think differently, learn differently, and access learning differently we should focus on the acceptance of biodiversity, the benefits and relative strength of brain variation, and outstanding sub-skills and the creation of opportunities for inclusive learning development in communities of inquiry and practice (SKIDMORE, 2004; RANKIN, 2021). To what extent has this academic shift in approach become translated into practice in Hungarian HE? Has the inclusive environment been able to 'break out of the bubble of individual problem solving' (FAZEKAS ET AL., 2020) towards starting to build institutional strategies that follow European standards?  What are the next steps according to Support Service staff and program participants? What are the experiences of students with disabilities arriving at universities? Is “preferential treatment” enough to retain neurodivergent individuals and help them successfully graduate, and transition to meaningful jobs after experiencing inclusion in HE (Bjarnason, 2004)? We sought answers to these questions in a mixed methods research.

In an exploratory & descriptive research our Inclusive Excellence Reseaarch Group at University of Pécs analyzed data over a period of 10 years and described the state of inclusion in status reports (Varga et al., 2021). Looking for correlations between data figures led me to take interest in a group of disabled students with very high latency, called students with specific learning differences (Elmer at al., 2021) or in other word, neurodivergent individuals(Singer, 1999; Armstrong, 2011).  

I have built my mixed-method research on the Processed-based Model of Inclusion (VARGA, 2005:7) and created a survey based on the original Booth-Ainscow “Index for Inclusion” and used its validated version for higher education (LOSADA PUENTE ET AL., 2021). I have also created a survey for faculty members based on a self-evaluation tool, titled Inclusivity Tips for Educators (CHARM-EU, 2022). The aims of these survey instruments are to explore the characteristics of inclusiveness at UP, with a special focus on the experiences of students with disabilities and neurodiversity. First, we will summarize the quantitative results from our time-series data analyses from a decade's data from the Neptun Unified Education System at the University of Pécs, Hungary (student N:68 602; study track N:83 067) using SPSS data analysis software with a special focus on students with disabilities, especially neurodivergent individuals’ educational outcome (in particular students with dyslexia, ADHD and autism spectrum condition). Furthermore, additional qualitative data was derived from student and faculty surveys. The instruments were translated adapted and validated for Hungarian higher education use with the authors’ consents. In addition, semi-structured focus group interviews with neurodivergent university students (N=12), students with other disabilities (N=11), Support Service staff (N=12), and educational leaders (N=6) responsible for inclusion, diversity and human rights protection at UP and its partner institutions.

Although the survey sample is not yet representative, it is informative, and results gained from the interviews and the open-ended survey questions (N=31) continue to give valuable insights into student experiences that can be thematically clustered around the pillars of the Process Model of Inclusion (VARGA, 2005:7) showing challenges that need to be tackled as well as best practices worth disseminating. Quantitative results from the Neptune data show that the proportion of neurodivergent persons follows an inverted U-shaped trend over time, declining again after a peak in 2015-17. There is a very high latency due to the stigma against diagnosis in the Hungarian public education system. Due to the exemptions received by many diagnosed dyslexic students, the proportion of neurodivergent people without language proficiency test is much higher than average (65.9%), which impedes their academic mobility. When attempting multivariate modelling that estimate the probability of a person successfully completing a training track (model 1), having a language exam (model 2), having at least one passive semester (model 3) and receiving a scholarship (model 4), for all models, except for model 4, the effect is significant (p < 0.05) (TOSZEGI, ERAT & VARGA, 2023). Qualitative results suggest that it would be important for leadership and faculty members to agree on a common set of criteria as to what constitutes an inclusive approach in HE when redesigning curriculum or planning professional developments. Most faculty members claim that they are not prepared to apply inclusive practices and academic language support for vulnerable groups as they believe that they lack the training and competences, which necessitates institution-wide strategies. Higher education in our region needs to recognize that diversity without equity has only brought symbolic and financial benefits to universities, but no meaningful benefits to underrepresented student groups.

Armstrong, T. (2011): Neurodiversity. The Perseus Books Group. Bjarnason, Dóra (2004). Disability and Young Adulthood: New Voices from Iceland. NY. Nova Science Publishers. CHARM-EU Consortium. (2022). CHARM-EU D6. 2-Good Practices in the field of inclusion and diversity. Elmer, D., Kertész, Á., Magdali, Cs., Molnár, Gy., Montag, B. & Zobokiné Gergely, N. (2021). Szolgáltatások a fogyatékossággal élő hallgatók inklúziójáért a PTE-n. In Vitéz, K. (Ed.). Befogadó egyetem – itt és most. Pécsi Tudományegyetem Bölcsészet- és Társadalomtudományi Kar Neveléstudományi Intézet. Pécs. Fazekas, Á. S., Alonso I Fernández, J., De Vocht, L., Zimonjić, B., Telesca, B. & Bittnerova, A.(2020). Mapping the challenges and enablers of international Mobility for students with disabilities. Erasmus Student Network AISBL. Brussels. Gallagher, Deborah, Heshusius, Lous, Iano, Richard P and Skrtic, Thomas M (2003) Challenging orthodoxy in special education: dissenting voices. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing. Hasler, F. (1993). Developments in the Disabled People’s Movement. In Swain, J., Finkelstein,V., French, S. & Oliver, M. (Eds.) (1993). Disabling Barriers Enabling Environments. Sage. Jacobs, G. Introverts Can Succeed with Cooperative Learning. Online Submiss. 2014, 4, 83–94. [Google Scholar] Losada Puente, L., Fiuza Asorey, M. & Baña Castro, M. (2021). What Defines Inclusion in Higher Education Institutions? Validation of an Instrument Based on the ‘Index for Inclusion’. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(1), 91-105. DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2021.1992752 Ntombela, S., & Mahlangu, V. P. (2019). The Inclusion and Support of Students with Disabilities in the South African Higher Education System: Supporting Students with Disabilities. In Diversity, equity, and inclusivity in contemporary higher education (pp. 195-210). IGI Global. Rankin, S. (2021, January 15). Raising Awareness of Neurodiversity in the Scientific Workplace.http://sangerinstitute.blog/2020/04/03/raising-awarness-of-neurodiversity-in-the-scientific-workplace Singer, J. (1999). “Why can’t you be normal for once in your life?” From a problem with no name to the emergence of a new category of difference. In Corker M., & French, S. (Eds.). Disability Discourse. (pp. 59–67). Open University Press. Shakespeare, T. & Watson, N. (2002). The Social Model of Disability: An outdated ideology? Social Science and Disability, 2002(2), 9-28. Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The Dynamic of School Development. Open University Press. Varga, A., Vitéz, K., & Széll, K. (2021). Characteristics of Diversity and Inclusion at the University of Pécs: A Case Study. Iskolakultúra, 31(09), 45-62.