Universal Design for Learning (UDL) - Can you see what I see

This chapter explores and examines the possibility that Universal Design for Learning (UDL) poses a challenge when learning is not simply confined to the classroom or lecture hall. This is particularly notable in higher education where academics have more than simply a teaching role but are also engaged in research. Consequently, the question arises, where does learning in higher education “stop and start”? Moreover, how do we identify “inclusive research” in third level and subsequently reconsider our roles on the contemporary inclusive campus?

Most specifically, the fundamental question is does UDL in fact “exclude” when moved from a classroom setting into the world of research, as it is considered in the main only in terms of teaching? This chapter will first reflect the progressive thinking and transformation that resulted in the shift from medical to social model approaches over the last twenty years in education and resulted in the emergence of a contemporary and diverse researcher.

The chapter will also explore the relationship between non-teaching professionals and UDL by way of discussing two national projects in Ireland. The Bronfenbrenner model (1979) is also particularly useful in this instance to review the position of professionals and academics and their engagement with UDL. While originally a theory of child development, it has been adopted in different educational contexts to explore relationships and influences. Greene (1994) and Greene and Moane (2000) examined the different influences on children growing up in Ireland, Mc Guckin and Minton (2014) also demonstrated the application of Bronfenbrenner’s framework to educational and counselling contexts while Quirke & Mc Guckin (2018, 2019) used the ecosystem to reflect on the relationships in career guidance, UDL and disability. In this chapter, Bronfenbrenner (1979) offers an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between the contemporary academic and UDL while acknowledging the different “drivers” and influences over time.

To begin with, this chapter will first set out inclusive practice then and now and what impact this has on academia today. The various models of disability and their impact on education and learning will also be outlined and how these changes relate to research in the context of this chapter. The focus is particularly on what we as individual researchers bring to the table; a practice already commonplace in research in terms of positionality and reflexivity.

The broader context of UDL and research is next explored, followed by a rationale for research to adopt a UDL approach, and what a new model of “inclusive research” could mean. The evolution of “researcher” and “research” in recent years in this context is also summarised. Finally, we raise the question:

Positionality and relationships - do they influence a UDL approach on campus and how does this in turn impact on our research and academic approaches?

As UDL evolves on campus an examination is timely as to what “inclusive practice” and “UDL” means for the academic and research; in particular the positionality of academics, educators and researchers and how this is fundamental to the very application of UDL in the world of third level learning. In conclusion, this chapter highlights what may need to be considered in terms of the role of the academic in third level education as they adopt the “shared” and “inclusive” thinking of UDL.

The next section will set out the history of inclusion and the recent changes in education and what impact this has on academia today.

Background—Ireland “The Land of Saints and Scholars”

Ireland is well renowned as the “Land of saints and scholars” across the world and continues to nourish a genuine and deep-seated love of learning. While however there is a history of learning, education was not always inclusive (Commission for Status of People with Disabilities, 1996). Until relatively recently the educational provision for many young people with disabilities including blind/vision impaired young people occurred primarily within the special education system, often run by charitable organisations and religious orders. This type of provision led to unjustified assumptions about the learning capabilities of this student cohort and implied that because of impairment they inevitably had more apparent learning needs than their peers (Griffin & Shevlin, 2007). The driver for this assumption was the medical model of disability which was prominent in Ireland as it was in most European countries and globally until the 1980’s.

In modern society, social categories are often used to refer to people. Consequently, the definitions and models of disability that are and were used in society reflect how disability and disabled people are perceived within that society. Goffman (1990, p. 11) asserts that “Society establishes the means of categorizing persons and the complement of attributes felt to be ordinary and natural for members of each of these categories”, subsequently, the labels attributed “to individuals and groups reflect their relative position within society.” (Griffin, & Shevlin, 2007, p. 14). Foucault (1980) asserts that a significant amount of the categorization of individuals within society emerged from medicine. Barton acknowledges that “Disability is a significant means of social differentiation in modern societies” (1996, p. 13). WhileMichalko (2009, p. 66) states that “Disability is here; it is in our societies, in our cultures; it is in our organizations, our institutions and in our everyday lives; disability is in our world; it can be nowhere else”. Furthermore, he acknowledges that “How disability is made to appear to and for us influences greatly how disability will participate in our individual and collective lives” (Michalko, 2009, p. 66). It has been argued that “The medical model of disability has been the legitimate conceptual paradigm for understanding disability throughout the history of modernity…” (Donoghue, 2003, p. 207). The medical model of disability was dominant in society until the 1970s and was particularly powerful as professionals developed and advocated this paradigm. Thomas, (2004, p. 23) argued that “…those who wield power through the authority conferred upon them by the status and legitimacy of their knowledge – doctors, state administrators and legislators – can impose the category “disabled” upon individuals in their purview.

Therefore, it is recognised that “In advanced western societies the predominant view of disability is one informed overwhelmingly by medicine.” (Drake, 1996, p. 148). Medical definitions individualise the “problem” of disability and can transform a description of a condition into a description of people (McCarthy, 2013). The medical model of disability has been the predominant model used in policy documents across education including higher education. Consequently, while individualised supports have been provided successfully for disabled people across education, there has been limited effect with regard to the broader inclusion of disabled people as policy makers and researchers in and of themselves.

Oliver argues that:

Not only do these definitions medicalise and individualise the problems of disability but they do the same to the solutions (policies) that are applied. Thus services too are based upon an individualised and medicalised view of disability and are designed by able-bodied people through a process over which disabled people have had little or no control (1990, p. 6).

Furthermore, Shakespeare and Watson, (1998, p. 14) maintain that the implementation of the medical model of disability “results in services and research aimed at the individual level” where the emphasis is on altering the individual rather than wider social processes.

Norwich (2008) acknowledges that

...the ways we perceive the phenomenon of disability influence the classification systems that underpin special educational practices. However negative one can be regarding classification systems, it is difficult to abolish them altogether in the school setting, because the consequence is denying rather than being able to abolish the need for differentiation. (p. 137).

Similarly, it is a challenge to reconsider inclusion in higher education and research if the focus remains on “disability” and differentiation rather than designing for inclusion and adopting a UDL approach.

While it is true to state that there was restructuring of the education system in the 1990s leading to changes including a language of inclusive education within policy initiatives, this has subsequently been debated that this application was in fact through a medical lens. (Finkelstein 1980). He observed that “...a new theory about disability only seriously arose when we argued that the central issue was one of overcoming oppression.” (Finkelstein, 1980, p. 5). He further affirmed that “A century of inculcating people with the attitude that says they cannot work, or use public transport, for example, because of their disabilities (meaning their bodily form) cannot be changed overnight.” (Finkelstein,1980, p. 22). Whether it can be argued or not that the medical influence remained, this shift towards a social model of disability was the start of a rights approach to education. (Barton, 1996, 2002).

As aforementioned, the emergence of the social model of disability in the 1970s was based on a negation of the medical model (Thomas, 2004). Social model theorists argued that the medical model over-emphasized impairment, cure and rehabilitation. Furthermore, they argued that “…disability is seen solely as an artificial creation of society, which would vanish almost over-night if social organisation and social attitudes were transformed” (Borsay, 2006, p. 154). The social model is concerned with disability and the societal barriers that are placed on disabled people (Söder, 2009) and therefore, “…disabled people would experience better quality of life and more equality of opportunity if society were organized in ways that took the needs of all its citizens into account” (Goodley & Tregaskis, 2006, p. 631).

Much of the change in policies and legislation both nationally and internationally, was driven by this shift in thinking about disability, as demonstrated in Table 1.

Evolution of policy and legislation…

Table 1

Sample of Main Policies and Legislation

The result is that in Ireland today, post-compulsory education opportunities for students with disabilities are a priority nationally; just as they are internationally. Legislation now underpins a policy of inclusion, the implementation of government sponsored access policies, and increased levels of support available to students with disabilities. This has contributed to increasing numbers of students with disabilities accessing higher education year on year as demonstrated in AHEAD statistics which was at 3.3% participation rates in undergraduate education in 2009/2010 compared to 6.2% in 2018/2019.

Having outlined the shift from the medical model to the social model of disability and the accruing changes in education, the next section will explore how these very changes relate to research in the context of this chapter. The chapter will focus particularly on what “we” as individual researchers bring to the table; a practice already commonplace in research in terms of positionality and reflexivity. While this chapter focuses on the authors, the purpose is to demonstrate the importance of evaluating ourselves in terms of our experience and approach to UDL and inclusion.

Position or Positionality – Does it matter for “UDL research”?

Life experiences have been instrumental in the research undertaken by the authors of this chapter, just as they are for researchers engaged in any discourse. While the world of education has radically changed in that there is now a model of universal inclusion being embraced by way of implementing UDL practices and philosophies; what is often overlooked is that there are now researchers who have in fact, been part of both worlds.

It is widely acknowledged that until relatively recently most research carried out in the area of disability has been done either within the medical profession or by those caring for disabled people. (Educable, 2000). UDL, on the other hand is a relatively new concept and has engaged a very different audience, in that “The allure of UDL has captured the imagination of many educators and policy makers.” (Edyburn 2010, p. 33). Furthermore, Edyburn states “…there has been little research on UDL. . .” (Edyburn 2010, p.34) and “… the current literature is starting to give definition and shape to what a UD educational model-based project or intervention looks like…” (Rao, Ok, & Bryant, 2014. p. 164). What is notable is that while there is a shared aim of inclusion embedded in the core concept of social model theories and UD, it might be timely to consider the positionality of researchers engaging with UDL and their experience of inclusion and exclusion, or the risk is that we will slip back into a more charitable and medical model approach.

It is evident that there is a parallel theme continuously evolving; one of “inclusion”. Universal Design and its original principles focused on how to “…consider universal design a process, rather than an achievement…” (Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998, p. 2) with the objective of achieving universal “inclusion” – that is inclusion for a diversity of people that feel excluded. It is not just confined to the world of disability. The seven key principles seek to guide the principle of “Universal design (which) can be defined as the design of products and environments to be usable to the greatest extent possible by people of all ages and abilities.” (Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998, p. 2). While Universal Design has appeal in the build environment and has been successfully adapted to the world of learning with some additions to the original seven principles, if when being adapted in research it is confined to just the area of disability it risks taking a very narrow focus. If research on UDL assumes that it is only for disability, it is in and off itself being exclusive and creating a silo effect.

Furthermore, the experience of exclusion or oppression, subtle or explicit is an important factor for any researcher where positionality comes into play. This is the position and positionality we have to be aware of when undertaking research; particularly on UDL if it is to evolve into a true philosophy of inclusion. Should the research continue to evolve without acknowledging the core aim of inclusion and the researcher it engages with, it may result in research which does not accurately represent the true experiences of disabled people or other excluded people and in fact exclude once again.

“Inclusive practice” is as new to the world of research and academia as UDL is to the lecture hall and classroom, and the “typical academic” is evolving as a consequence. This in turn demands the need for UDL to become a shared thinking outside of the classroom – and ensure that the contemporary “atypical academic” is included and furthermore that their history is considered and recognised as relevant to the research they are engaged in. “It is only through people’s stories and biographies that an understanding that unites the public and the private into a coherent entity can come into being” (Watson, 1998, p. 151).

Clark outlined “developing and sustaining research relationships is at the heart of the qualitative research enterprise” (Clark, 2008, p. 954) and “research outcomes that are designed to make more general contributions to the knowledge field are not, by themselves, necessarily enough to sustain positive research relationships” (Clark, 2008, p. 967). Moreover, the “…definition of UD (has) evolved from a concept or philosophy in 1998 to a scientifically validated framework in 2008.” (Edyburn 2010, p.34).

In spite of such changes in research, it has been widely acknowledged by (Ali et al., 2001, Educable et al., 2000) among others that there is a dearth of participation among disabled people within the area of research itself. They are frequently either not consulted at all or else continue to remain on the periphery of the research process. French & Swain (2006, p. 385) assert that a “…paucity of oral history reverberates through the development of disability policy and practice”. While disabled people need to be included in research around disability, as researchers, they also have other experience and need to be included in the wider research agenda.

Finkelstein argues it is important to appreciate “…the differences between ‘interpretations’, ‘models’ and ‘theories’ and their precise focus of attention.” (2001, p.1). He further states “Our vulnerability is then seen as a condition that separates us from what is regarded as normal.” (Finkelstein 2001, p.5). This would suggest that despite the discourse and changes taking place, a feeling of “difference” and “exclusion” persists and seeking “inclusion” is perhaps not as simple as considering the barriers that exist and the progress of a new model such as UDL. Exclusion and disability must be recognised as “…the product of social forces and not physical impairment.” (Finkelstein,1980, p. 22) which has to be considered by researchers as they engage in research about UDL and inclusion.

The authors of this chapter would all have grown up listening to the hit song Crocodile Rock 1973 by Elton John, but each in very different circumstances. A large part of Dr McCarthy’s (Patricia) story was dominated by the segregationist and institutional education policies that were the norm in Ireland up to the 1990s. In order to engage in education, she had to move over 250km away from family from an early age. As education was evolving at the time, she was in fact amongst the first cohort to sit state examinations in the school for the blind. A decade after leaving compulsory education, she commenced third level education and with the assistance of many inclusive practices and technologies was empowered to graduate with a Doctorate nearly fifteen years later. What is notable is that the shift from the exclusion to inclusion directly impacted on Dr McCarthy’s own learning experience and begs the question; had UDL been the norm at the time, would her story be different? Moreover, what learning can she bring to the world of research today? Her positionality has resulted in a deeper understanding as to what inclusion can mean and lends itself to exploring inclusive UDL applications in a real way. Her voice is another voice that has to be included in research – as a researcher.

Mary Quirke on the other hand, in spite of being raised very near to Patricia, at the same time, had a very different path to research and academia. Higher Education was not considered the most likely path for girls when she left school and she returned later to university education as an adult learner and advanced to work in the world of disability, policy and education at a senior level. Having advocated for over twenty years in the world of disability, inclusion, education and employment; she was directly involved in promoting inclusive policy and practice. She is currently collaborating with Professor Mc Guckin and is engaged in research on Inclusion, Universal Design and Career Guidance. Her knowledge and experience of inclusion and exclusion underpins the pragmatic approach she takes when bridging the gap between inclusive research and inclusive practice.

The unique position of this team of three has resulted in the contribution of a wide breadth of knowledge and experience to the research work currently being undertaken – in terms of what is being researched and moreover, how it’s being researched. This has resulted in an ongoing reflection on positionality and relationships and how they influence a UDL approach. How this in turn impacts on research and academic approaches results in UDL being examined in relation to all other aspects of academia.

Having previously outlined the development of thinking about inclusion in the theories of disability and UDL, and then setting out a rationale for recognising that there needs to be a greater focus on position and positionality when undertaking research; the next section will propose how a more inclusive UD approach can be taken in research today.

Moving to a UDL Approach in research

It is generally agreed that a UDL approach is the solution to ensure successful inclusion for a learner that might otherwise be excluded. However, it is not as easily understood as it is often portrayed. While it is true that many believe they are taking this inclusive approach - albeit unintentionally, others adopt it with great intention (Quirke & McCarthy, 2020). The challenge is to accept it is not a fixed approach, with clear “rights and wrongs” but rather a reactive and proactive manner of thinking and acting inclusively, in line with the original thinking behind Mace’s UD principles. (Quirke & McCarthy, 2020).

A point to be considered is that the segregated system believed that they were taking an “intentional inclusive approach” albeit it was a separate system. If we stop and reflect on whether a UDL approach would have made a difference or not for Dr McCarthy and her peers with disabilities when they were advancing through the education system; it begs the bigger question - would things have been any or very different?’. It further begs the question how their contribution is enabled or recognised in contemporary research that continues to apply traditional approaches. As Kitchin stated “...research can play a vital role in the emancipation of disabled people. This can be fully realised if research is modified radically.” (2000, p. 45)

An ecological systems theoretical approach developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) can allow us to observe the influence of inclusive practices in education over time. Moreover, using the Bronfenbrenner approach, we can explore disability and inclusion in education in relation to UDL and the positionality of learners and learn more about the impact of this positionality. Bronfenbrenner as an ecological system has been used successfully to explore such concepts before and lends itself to comparing the experience (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

The Learner at the Centre of the Ecological System That Is Inclusive Education

The following excerpts from Patricia’s PhD thesis which explored the experiences of blind and vision impaired learners illustrate clearly how the effects of the system play a role. Changes in policy and practice impacted on minority groups in terms of their microsystem and attitude and opportunity.

Taken from McCarthy, 2013.

Taken from McCarthy, 2013.

When these experiences are considered using the Bronfenbrenner model ... the impact of “time” and “context” is much more apparent and becomes real in terms of positionality for these learners and the manner in which inclusive practice is applied. It also allows us to consider their position and positionality in terms of research. It also allows us to reflect on the subtle evolution that is occurring in terms of “researcher” and “research” in recent years.

This approach (time and context) when applied to academia and the researcher in terms of inclusion and exclusion, can illustrate exclusionary practices in some of the more traditional research approaches. To further illustrate considerations worth exploring more include:

• Research tends to take a medical model approach as “. . . medical dominance prevails in relation to disability across the different disciplines. . .” (Oliver, 1990, p. x).
• Research more often considers disabled people as the researched; “disability discourse has been, and to a large degree still is, overwhelmingly dominated by people who are not disabled” (Kitchin, 2000, p. 25)
• Consequential there can be labelling and stigmatising leading to exclusionary attitudes and assumptions can prevail. As Oliver (1992) states that disabled respondents are oppressed by researchers and can be exploited for academic gain.

These and other such questions lead to the bigger question “where does UDL fit with all this”? That remains a challenge for contemporary policy and moreover for contemporary researchers. This is the rationale for reviewing position and positionality in terms of UDL as there is a growing need for a contemporary model for research, one that seeks to be more democratic and equitable. It is useful at this point to reflect on the experience of other practitioners outside of the classroom in terms of UDL with regards to their shift in approach to inclusion and for this purpose we will turn to two national Irish projects.

Reviewing the position and relationship of other practitioners with UDL

Taking from two recent national projects in Ireland that explored the “relationship” between UDL and non-teaching professionals; an ideology emerged whereby each of us need to reconsider our position in relation to UDL. This shift in thinking evolved in relation to inclusive practice and how it impacts on all other practices going forward.

1. The Role of the Disability Officer and the Disability Service in Higher Education in Ireland: A Vision for Future Development (McCarthy, Quirke, and Treanor, 2018: Quirke, McCarthy, Treanor, & Mc Guckin, 2019).
2. A Framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) for the Further Education & Training (FET) Sector in Ireland. (Quirke & Mc Carthy, 2020)

The shift in thinking can be framed in three simple steps (or habits), which are outlined below. A precursor to appreciate the steps originates from the accumulative learning from the two projects. The professional outside the classroom needs to reflect on their unique role when embracing a UDL approach if the learning environment is to be truly inclusive. The role of disability officer, by way of example, while neither a teacher nor a learner, is one such professional and is engaged with all those involved in making learning accessible. The contention for disability officers on a UDL campus is that while they are part of the learning environment, they, similar to other non-teaching professionals, can find it challenging to position themselves on the current UDL framework. They need to adopt a UDL approach specific to their role. Similarly, the objective of the conceptual UDL framework for the FET sector in Ireland was to provide all practitioners working across the vocational educational system with a mechanism to encourage UDL practice. This involved developing a broader conceptual framework for a diversity of practitioners across a national learning environment while appreciating their actions and participation as part of this culture. In both projects the focus was on widening the thinking of inclusion and UDL, to others in a learning environment, both inside and outside the classroom.

Three simple steps were set out as 3 ‘Good Habits’ for UDL where the objective is to make inclusion everyone's business.

Similarly, research and researchers can adopt these simple “habits” as they develop “...research strategies that are both emancipatory (seeking ‘positive’ societal change) and empowering (seeking ‘positive’ individual change through participation)”. (Kitchin, 2000, p. 25-26). This then highlights the need to raise questions about positionality and relationships in research and whether this needs to be part of the discourse about UDL approaches on campus.

Afterall, how does our position and positionality, as academic with UDL in turn impact on our research and academic approaches? Moreover, this raises a bigger question - are we in fact contributing to the development of an exclusive model or an inclusive model of UDL research? More specifically, where and how do we as researchers assume responsibility for inclusion?

Conclusion

This chapter reviewed the importance of positionality and relationships of researchers and raised questions about their influence regarding a UDL approach on campus. It explored how this in turn can impact on our research and academic approaches by way of setting out the authors experiences and positionality for the purpose of demonstration. Including the experiences of inclusion and exclusion of researchers is in itself emancipatory and empowering, while also respecting that each is very different and has something to add that is unique to the research discourse. Particularly on UDL research discourse.

On reviewing two national projects, that developed a UDL framework for professionals outside the classroom; it became evident that context matters. Existing UDL frameworks developed for pedagogical approaches and classrooms are a challenge for other educational practitioners on a UDL campus. The learning from these 2 national projects resulted in 3 simple habits – highlighting where responsibility and positionality contribute to a UDL approach.

This subsequently raises questions as to how we as researchers are in a position to influence the education of the future at a systemic level. Moreover, as the academic profile changes and becomes increasingly diverse, how the outsider can become the insider and add value to research is worth consideration. As UDL evolves and gathers pace, the direct results in higher education can be observed by way of a new academic. This demonstrates the need to review UDL when adopting it outside of a classroom environment and in research activities. As UDL evolves positionality and its role in research must be a bigger part of the discourse.

In conclusion, there is a growing awareness of an emergent diversity of academics – which is continually changing. Consequently, there is a need to formulate a “shared” thinking around UDL and the importance of insider and outsider in contemporary research, if it is to truly include and be sustainable.

References

AHEAD (2018). Number of Students with Disabilities Studying in Higher Education in Ireland 2014/15. Dublin: AHEAD Educational Press.

Ali, Z., Fazil, Q., Bywaters, P., Wallace, L., & Singh, G. (2001). Disability, ethnicity and childhood: a critical review of research. Disability & Society, 16(7), 949-967

Barton, L. (2002). Inclusive Education and the Management of Change in Britain. Exceptionality Education Canada, 12, 169-85.

Barton, L. (1996). Sociology and disability: some emerging issues. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and Society: emerging issues and insights. London: Longman.

Borsay, A. (2006). Personal trouble or public issue? Towards a model of policy for people with physical and mental disabilities. In L. Barton (Ed.), Overcoming disabling barriers : 18 years of Disability & society. London: Routledge.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard university press.

Clarke, J. (1998). Voices From the Margins: Regulation and Resistance in the Lives of Lesbian Teachers. In M. Erben (Ed.), Biography and Education: a Reader. London: Falmer Press.

Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. (1996). A Strategy for Equality: Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science. (1993). Report of the Special Education Review Committee. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Donoghue, C. (2003). Challenging the Authority of the Medical Definition of Disability: An analysis of the resistance to the social constructionist paradigm, Disability & Society, 18(2), 199-208, DOI: 10.1080/0968759032000052833

Drake, R. F. (1996). A critique of the role of the traditional charities. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Educable, Save the Children Fund (Great Britain), & Disability Action. (2000). No choice: no chance. Belfast: Save the Children.

Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33-41.

Elton John. & Taupin, B. (1972). Crocodile Rock on Don’t Shoot Me I’m Only the Piano Player. London: United Kingdom.

Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people: Issues for discussion (No. 5). World Rehabilitation Fund, Inc..

Finkelstein, V. (2001). The social model of disability repossessed. Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, 1, 1-5.

Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge : selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York ; London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

French, S., & Swain, J. (2006). Telling stories for a politics of hope. Disability & Society, 21(5), 383-396.

Government of Ireland. (1998). Education Act (Vol. Stationery Office): Dublin.

Government of Ireland. (2000). Equal Status Act. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland. (2004a). Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland. (2004b). Equality Act 2004. Dublin: Stationery office.

Government of Ireland. (2005). Disability Act 2005. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Goffman, E. (1990). Stigma : notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Penguin.

Goodley, D., & Tregaskis, C. (2006). Storying disability and impairment: Retrospective accounts of disabled family life. Qualitative health research, 16(5), 630-646.

Greene, S. M. (1994). Growing up Irish: Development in context. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 15(2-3), 354-371.

Greene, S., & Moane, G. (2000). Growing up Irish: Changing children in a changing society. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 21(3-4), 122-137.

Griffin, S., & Shevlin, M. (2007). Responding to special educational needs : an Irish perspective. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.

Kitchin, R. (2000). The researched opinions on research: Disabled people and disability research. Disability & Society, 15(1), 25-47.

Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/pudfiletoc.htm

Mc Guckin, C., & Minton, S.J. (2014). From theory to practice: Two ecosystemic approaches and their applications to understanding school bullying. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(1),36 – 48

McCarthy, P., Quirke, M., & Treanor, D., (2018). The Role of the Disability Officer and the Disability Service in Higher Education in Ireland; A Vision for Future Development. Dublin: AHEAD Educational Press.

McCarthy, P. (2013) Expectations You Encounter: The Educational Experiences and Transition Choices/Opportunities of Blind/Vision Impaired People in the Republic of Ireland. PhD thesis: Trinity College Dublin (Unpublished).

Michalko, R. (2009). The excessive appearance of disability. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(1), 65-74.

Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability : international perspectives and future directions. London: Routledge.

O’Donoghue v. Minister for Health & Ors, [1993] I.E.H.C.2 (Ir.) Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/-rRbX

Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production?. Disability, Handicap & Society, 7(2), 101-114.

Oliver, M. (1990). Politics of disablement. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Quirke, M., McCarthy, P., Treanor, D., & Mc Guckin, C. (2019). Tomorrow’s disability officer – A cornerstone on the universal design campus. Journal of Inclusive Practice in Further and Higher Education (JIPFHE), 11.1, June 2019, 29-42.

Quirke. M, & McCarthy P. (2020). A Conceptual Framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) for the Irish Further Education and Training Sector Where Inclusion is Everybody's Business. Dublin: SOLAS.

Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2019). Career guidance needs to learn from ‘disability’ if it is to embrace an uncertain future. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER): “Education in an Era of Risk - The Role of Educational Research for the Future”, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 3rd - 6th September, 2019. Abstracts not Published.

Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2018). Learning from the past . . . How career guidance might learn from inclusive education. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER): “Inclusion and Exclusion, Resources for Educational Research”, The Free University Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy, 3rd - 4th September, 2018. Abstracts not Published

Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and special education, 35(3), 153-166.

Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (1998). Theoretical Perspectives on Research. Growing up with disability, 34, 13.

Söder, M. (2009). Tensions, perspectives and themes in disability studies. Scandinavian journal of disability research, 11(2), 67-81.

Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/pudfiletoc.htm

Thomas, C. (2004). Disability and Impairment. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barriers - enabling environments. London: SAGE.

United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organisation. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.

Watson, N. (1998). Enabling Identity: Disability, Self and Citizenship. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The Disability Reader : social science perspectives. London: Cassell.

World Conference on Education for All, & Meeting Basic Learning Needs. (1990). World Declaration on Education for All and Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning Needs. Inter-Agency Commission.