Description: I am interested in exploring the methodological challenges of conducting accessibility audits within academic institutions. While accessibility standards (such as universal design principles or national guidelines) provide frameworks, their practical application in complex campus environments often raises difficulties.
Some of the challenges may include:
- Balancing physical infrastructure assessment (e.g., ramps, signage, classrooms, toilets) with less visible aspects such as digital accessibility or teaching methods.
- Adapting international standards to local contexts, especially in low- and middle-income countries where resources and infrastructure may be limited.
- Ensuring meaningful participation of individuals with different types of disabilities in the audit process.
- Choosing between qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods to capture the lived experience of accessibility.
- Translating audit findings into actionable recommendations that institutions can realistically implement.
I would like to learn from colleagues:
- What are the most common methodological challenges you have encountered in accessibility audits of higher education or academic settings?
- How can these challenges be addressed effectively, both from a research and a practical standpoint?
- Are there any validated tools or best-practice frameworks that you would recommend?
Your insights, examples, or references would be very valuable for shaping future research and practice in this area.
Zein Al-Abideen Douba
Balancing visible and invisible dimensions: Physical infrastructure (ramps, signage, toilets, classrooms) is easier to measure against standards, while digital accessibility and pedagogical practices require different tools and often more qualitative approaches. A mixed-methods design (structured checklists + interviews/focus groups) is often the most effective way to capture both. Contextualizing international standards: Applying guidelines such as the ADA or universal design principles in low- and middle-income contexts can be difficult. Methodologically, this requires adapting standards through participatory approaches, working with local disability groups to define “minimum feasible” benchmarks without lowering rights. Ensuring meaningful participation: Involving students and staff with diverse disabilities is essential but methodologically challenging (e.g., recruitment, representation, power dynamics). Co-design or participatory audit frameworks (where persons with disabilities are part of the audit team) can improve validity and credibility. Quantitative vs. qualitative measurement: Relying only on checklists can miss lived experiences, while interviews alone may not provide generalizable findings. Triangulation (e.g., using accessibility scoring systems together with narratives) addresses this gap. From audit to action: A common challenge is that reports remain at the descriptive stage. Methodologically, linking each finding to a priority rating (high, medium, low) and to a feasible recommendation makes translation into practice more realistic.
This is an important and timely question. From my experience and the literature, some of the most common methodological challenges in accessibility audits of academic institutions include:
Useful frameworks/tools:
- Accessibility Audit Toolkits developed by UNESCO and national disability councils.
- Participatory Campus Accessibility Audit Models (used in the UK and Canada).
- The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework for the teaching/learning dimension
0 votes
0 thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude
More Jean Claude Sabato's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions