Exploring Postsecondary Administrators’ Inclusion of Disability within Their Definition of Student Diversity

The University Administrative Staff Perception of Inclusion in Higher Education

“…Administrative staff members perceive diversity in its broader sense: in religious affiliation, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, disabilities, health conditions, refugee status, immigrants, asylum seekers, re-emigrants. This broad perception of diversity is an important precondition for creating a supportive university setting for all students (Aquino, 2020). Salmi and D'Addio (2020) explains that it is always linked to the perspective national equity assessment.…”

Understanding career development pathways of college students with disabilities using crip theory and the theory of whole self.

“…Finally, we recommend incorporating disability not just as an afterthought, but as a critical diversity factor of higher education institutions. Research has shown that there is a lack of universities’ awareness and ability to include SWD in their diversity statements and practices (Aquino, 2016; Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012; Scheef et al, 2020). Explicitly repositioning disability as an equal component of diversity at the strategic level of an institution allows career and other related services for SWD to be sustainably provided.…”

The direct and indirect effects of engagement on desired outcomes for first-year students with learning disabilities.

“…The experiences of students with disabilities differ greatly than those who do not identify as having a disability, largely because of societal stigma (Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Miller, 2015), and perspectives of disabilities as differences that must be healed or treated (the medical and rehabilitation models), and societal constructs or stereotypes often related to underserved groups on campus (Evans et al, 2017). Historically, research on students with disabilities has taken a deficit-based approach, focusing on limitations rather than on disability as a salient dimension of students’ identity (Aquino, 2016). Previous research has framed the experience of students with disabilities by demonstrating lower grade point average (GPA), retention and completion rates, self-advocacy rates, academic engagement, and life satisfaction levels compared to their peers without a disability (Dong & Lucas, 2014; Fleming et al, 2017).…”

“…Students with invisible or less-visible disabilities, such as those related to learning, may choose not to disclose disabilities to their institution, faculty, and peers, or may choose to disclose partial information on a situational basis to protect against misunderstandings and ostracization, leading to underreporting (Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Hong, 2015; Miller, 2015; Vaccaro et al, 2018). For research, disclosure further complicates identifying students with disabilities as some students choose to disclose or not disclose in their collegiate careers (Aquino & Bittinger, 2019).…”

“…In the past, this model has been used to study the experiences of minoritized students in many areas of higher education (Goings, 2016; Harper, 2010). Many studies regarding students with disabilities take a deficit-based approach, examining why these students have lower GPAs, do not persist, and participate in higher education in such low numbers (Aquino, 2016; Carroll et al, 2016; Fleming et al, 2017). By adopting an anti-deficit lens when studying students with disabilities, researchers can focus on how students with disabilities succeed in higher education rather than where their deficits lie.…”