Inclusive By Design: Shifting to a Universal Design Mindset to Craft Communities of Belonging | Wright

Abstract

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are vital concepts that impact higher education positively, but too often belonging and accessibility are omitted from the conversation. Sense of belonging is an important factor surrounding higher education and DEI because of the associated benefits. For higher education students, sense of belonging is related to their overall satisfaction and intention to persist, leading to graduation.

Although sense of belonging is an important factor for all individuals, it is often overlooked in some populations with marginalized identities, such as individuals with disabilities. People with disabilities have historically been ignored in conversations surrounding belonging. When individuals do not have a sense of belonging it can lead to feelings of exclusion and isolation. Sense of belonging is a sense of mattering, and individuals must be in environments that support them holistically including all their identities.

This manuscript explores how student affairs professionals in higher education can intentionally implement universal design throughout their work, potentially increasing a sense of belonging for more students. I share practical strategies to intentionally design inclusive communities that prioritize accessibility, leading to the future of higher education having increased retention, problem-solving skills for students, and overall better well-being and belonging.

Key Words: Disability; Belonging; Accessibility; Universal Design

Introduction

Diversity within higher education in the United States is ever-changing, and in the next decade it is projected to be “majority-minority” (Vespa et al., 2018). Diversity was different yesterday than it is today, and it will be different tomorrow. As diversity is changing and individuals on college campuses are becoming more uniquely diverse in their identities, professionals must embrace opportunities for inclusion within this challenge of change. Preparing for this challenge appropriately allows all campus students, staff, faculty, and community members to become more authentic in their work toward self-actualization.

Unfortunately, higher education settings have not historically been inclusive spaces (e.g., segregation, gender bias, financial barriers). The earliest institutions in higher education were places to educate the elite and privileged (Urquiola, 2023). Even within the last 100 years, higher education has enacted a gatekeeper mentality providing opportunities for some students and limiting opportunities for others. Often, among those excluded from these limited opportunities were people who had different abilities than the majority. This disproportionately impacted students with disabilities.

In our current politically contentious times, the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education is under scrutiny. Even among the many professionals who understand the value of DEI in higher education, accessibility and disability are typically left out of the conversation. This is disheartening because over 20% of college students report having disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). This means that a large population of students in higher education are not receiving the full, holistic support they need to be themselves. Because of disability stigma, information about students with disabilities is drastically underreported. For student affairs professionals to evolve and face the challenges of higher education today and for the next 100 years, we must shift to a universal design mindset to craft communities of belonging for everyone.

Importance of Belonging

Foundational theorists have focused on the relationship between belonging and success (e.g., Astin, 1984; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1968; Tinto, 1975). Belonging is a deep connection with groups, places, and experiences. A nurturing environment that provides the proper levels of challenge and support can lead to belonging (Astin, 1984). An environment that does not focus on creating opportunities for connection can intentionally or inadvertently lead to a lack of belonging, which motivates students to withdraw from college (Tinto, 1975).

Every human has an innate need to form a sense of belonging. A sense of belonging can be found as people seek connection to others. According to Maslow (1954) connection or belonging is required on the path to self-actualization. Belonging is a need because it shapes the formation of our identity. Forming a connection with others develops a greater sense of self within each of us to understand that we have a community. Being part of something bigger than ourselves and forming this sense of purpose provides us each with a sense of safety and encourages us to express our authenticity.

Authentically expressing ourselves is important for everyone – especially college students. Higher education institutions are places for learning, community building, and innovative discoveries. Simultaneously, these environments are places that pose both academic and social pressures. College dynamics are demanding for many students when balancing new responsibilities, challenging assignments, adjusting to new environments, personal issues, and navigating social expectations (Sprung & Rogers, 2021). It is difficult to handle all of these challenges and opportunities, while also exploring identity development. Inclusive environments promote belonging and provide students the support they need while motivating them to be their authentic selves leading to resilience, creativity, self-confidence, and other skills (Strayhorn, 2022).

Forming a sense of belonging is important for all students but can be more challenging for historically marginalized populations because of discrimination, isolation, stigma, and lack of acceptance (Strayhorn, 2022). Students with disabilities are part of this marginalized population and, just like their peers, crave connection to support their overall well-being. However, barriers they encounter include classmates not accepting them holistically and environmental challenges posed by higher education employees. Employees often place unintentional barriers to belonging for this population by using inaccessible material, ignoring accommodations, and assuming disability is a monolithic experience. While not all student affairs professionals are disability scholars, it is our responsibility to foster a culture of inclusivity. This work increases belonging and meets the needs of all students, including the ever-growing population of students with disabilities.

Universal Design

A strategy student affairs professionals can use to support students with disabilities is a universal design mentality. Universal design was developed in 1997 by a team of architects who intended for products and environments to be usable by all people (regardless of age, ability, or other factors), without the need for a specialized design (National Disability Authority, 2024). Universal design creates opportunities for people without the need to request specific accommodations. This results in access and equity.

Other educational models have adopted universal design and applied it to classrooms. One such example is the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework (Meyer et al., 2014). The UDL pedagogy is intended to provide flexibility to support students across learning abilities. Model guidelines focus on providing multiple means for engagement, representation, action, and expression. UDL is a way of customizing learning in the classroom, but a similar foundation of universal design can be practically applied throughout student affairs.

By understanding and applying the seven principles of universal design in higher education, we are actively building inclusive cultures of belonging. The seven principles of universal design are:

  1. Equitable in Use
  2. Flexibility in Use
  3. Simple and Intuitive
  4. Perceptible Information
  5. Tolerance for Error
  6. Low Physical Effort
  7. Size and Space for Approach and Use

In the next section, I will describe each principle, discuss examples, and share practical strategies.

Principle 1: Equitable in Use

Equitable in use describes a design that is useful and marketable to people of all abilities (National Disability Authority, 2024) and ensures fairness and access. An example of this is when you enter your local grocery store. Most stores have automatic doors that open whether you are physically walking, using a wheelchair for mobility, or traveling in any other manner. Student affairs professionals can practice an “automatic door” concept, as well by communicating with students in a variety of ways. Some students may receive communication better via email, while others may prefer videos or text messages. Finding the most useful form of communication for each student meets their needs and helps establish belonging. By utilizing our skills, student affairs professionals can build rapport with students and learn the best way to meet their needs.

Principle 2: Flexibility in Use

Flexibility in use describes a design that accommodates a wide range of individuals from various backgrounds and abilities (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of flexibility in use is in streaming services that allow for closed captioning. Flexibility allows users to turn on or off the closed captioning feature. Closed captioning appeals to people who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, and it also appeals to people who require the captions for processing. The information being conveyed is communicated in a variety of ways.

Flexibility in use is applicable in student affairs to meet the needs of a wide range of students from various backgrounds. Student affairs professionals are adaptable and must avoid treating students who have disabilities as a monolithic group. We need to work to learn their needs, preferences, potential, and limitations. While many student affairs professionals are trained and provided protocols about student meetings, those protocols can sometimes be rigid in scheduling an appointment. Professionals being flexible in use would allow for a scheduling format permitting students to schedule in person, via phone, or email. This could also change by meeting students over lunch, outside the office, or online.

Being flexible in use in this way adapts to students who may have challenges with different modes of communication/scheduling, difficulty with mobility, or anxiety with coming into the physical building. Student affairs professional being flexible in use allows them to connect with students from an array of abilities and identities. Being flexible in this way helps establish belonging.

Principle 3: Simple and Intuitive in Use

Simple and intuitive in use means information is easy to understand, regardless of the familiarity or ability of the user (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of this is accessibility buttons that automatically open doors. The accessibility button uses plain language stating, “push to open” and has a symbol for those who may not speak English. This button can be pressed by hand or any other way of applying pressure.

Student affairs professionals must also utilize being simple and intuitive in use throughout our practice. Professionals assist international students, first-generation students, and students with disabilities. Understanding that not all of the populations we serve may have English as a first language encourages us to find various ways to communicate. Not making assumptions and explaining how we can assist is beneficial for first-generation students who may not be familiar with student affairs or knowledgeable about resources on campus. Using plain language is another way we can be simple and intuitive in use. This approach applies not only to students with disabilities but to everyone. Communicating simply and intuitively allows us to connect with all students, build rapport, and foster belonging by ensuring students’ needs are met.

Principle 4: Perceptible Information

Perceptible information communicates necessary information to all users in an effective manner, regardless of their abilities (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of this is when people use self-check-out in the grocery store. Most self-checkout machines display the item scanned on the screen and say the item’s name audibly. This allows people to receive the information in multiple ways.

Student affairs professionals operationalize this mindset by sharing information with students during meetings and also sending a summary of the meeting via email. This summary can include important dates and the key points of the conversation. Sharing perceptible information in this way relays to the student that you care about them as an individual and their success. Students understanding that professionals invest in their development contributes to their belonging.

Principle 5: Tolerance for Error

The tolerance for error principle minimizes consequences for unintended actions (National Disability Authority, 2024). This principle ensures that accidents are not detrimental to the person using the product. An example of this in products is the guard rails on stairs. The guard rails protect individuals from walking off the stairs by bumping into them. They also provide support for those who need the rail for assistance.

Student affairs professionals can apply this universal design principle and shift to this mindset by creating room for mistakes and protection from harm. People are not perfect, and students occasionally make mistakes, such as forgetting deadlines or assignments. Students must learn from their mistakes, but they should not be trapped in despair because of their mistakes. Experiences differ, but some students dwell on negative experiences or distress which can leave them hopeless. Negative feelings can overwhelm students and immobilize them on their educational journey. Student affairs professionals applying the principle of tolerance for error account for mistakes, give grace, provide safety, and offer learning opportunities. Offering patience and understanding while providing guidance when students are not perfect allows them to continue developing and fosters a feeling of support, which can help to increase sense of belonging. Supporting students in this way creates opportunities for future success.

Principle 6: Low Physical Effort

The principle of low physical effort describes a design that can be efficiently used with minimum fatigue (National Disability Authority, 2024). Automatic garage doors are an example of this. Physically lifting heavy garage doors may be difficult for some and impossible for others. Using an automatic opener is a way of lifting the door easily.

Working with student affairs professionals is different from lifting a garage door, but this work can still result in fatigue. Examples include traditional policies requiring students to attend in person to schedule a meeting or when we require documents to be signed in person. For some students, navigating campus is exhausting mentally and/or physically. By utilizing technology, we can support students without putting an undue burden on them. Low physical effort could also be applied by making phone calls to connect with professors or utilizing technology for meetings. Reducing fatigue for students and shifting to this model increases belonging by removing unneeded barriers.

Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use

The last universal design principle is size and space for approach and use. This principle means that there is an appropriate size that accounts for manipulation, regardless of body size and mobility (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of this is in most newer vehicles. Newer vehicles give users the opportunity to adjust the seat position, height, angle, and tilt to meet the needs of the user. Altering the seat in this way ensures the user can find a position that makes them comfortable.

Student affairs professionals must have adaptable furniture to meet the needs of all students, but they also must be adaptable in their approach and use as well. Students navigate the college campus with a variety of experiences, identities, and abilities. Student affairs professionals cannot approach every student in the same way. Creating a tailored approach allows for better communication and a stronger relationship. This could mean adjusting the speed of the communication or the amount of detail in the information students are provided. Communicating with a different approach that allows for dignity and respect fosters positive relationships, leading to belonging.

Conclusion

The college population is becoming more and more diverse. Student affairs professionals must adapt to create equitable opportunities and inclusive environments. As a student affairs administrator, I understand that we have unique paths and various mission statements related to our impactful work. Each of us has the shared goal of enhancing the overall college experience for college students and assisting with students’ identity development. The everchanging student population in higher education may seem like a challenge, but it is actually an opportunity to shift to a more universally designed mindset. Making this shift creates opportunities to nurture relationships and facilitate belonging. Belonging leads to persistence and academic success. By applying the universal design mindset throughout student affairs, professionals can learn from the past 100 years and prepare for the future by being more inclusive by design.

Reflection Questions

  1. What are some strategies you are using to practice universal design in your current position of employment?
  2. Considering the growing diverse needs of students in higher education, what are some common barriers relating to accessibility faced by the marginalized populations you work with?
  3. In what ways do you believe universal design can improve the overall college experience not just for students with disabilities, but for everyone?

Author Bio

Nicholas Lamar Wright, Ph.D. (He/Him/His), is a champion of diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and accessibility who is motivated to build inclusive cultures for all people to express authenticity. He is a nationally recognized, award-winning higher education leader, scholar, and practitioner who identifies as a multiracial (Black/White) man with a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Dr. Wright serves as the Director of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion for the Human Development Institute at the University of Kentucky.

 References

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harpers.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

National Disability Authority. (2024). Universal Design – The 7 Principles. Retrieved from https://universaldesign.ie/about-universal-design/the-7-principles

Sprung, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2021). Work-life balance as a predictor of college student anxiety and depression. Journal of American College Health, 69(7), 775-782.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2022). Unraveling the relationship among engagement, involvement, and sense of belonging. In The Impact of a Sense of Belonging in College (pp. 21-34). Routledge.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of educational research, 45(1), 89-125.

Urquiola, M. (2023). Higher education in the United States: Laissez‐faire, differentiation, and research. Asian Economic Policy Review, 18(2), 196-213.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Digest of Education Statistics, 2022. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60

Vespa, J., Armstrong, D. M., & Medina, L. (2018). Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.