FREDERIC FOVET, DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES (OSD) , MCGILL

Being ‘UD’ before you preach ‘UD’

Introduction

• Universal Design is gaining in popularity on North American campuses

• Seen as the most comprehensive, sustainable and socially equitable model to manage Disabilities issues

• One of the pressing objectives of DS providers is to now advocate for change and to promote UD on campuses

Introduction (contd)

Are DS units taking the time to examine their own practices before lobbying senior administration, faculty and students?

This presentation describes one institution’s progress through this paradoxical journey (qualitative data collected through a one year pilot study following a campus wide UD implementation initiative)

Context

Rapid increase in the volume of users has led to rapid changes in practices

Resource management imperatives have led to a sustainable look at the work of DS providers, and have weighed more heavily than notions of social equity and social inclusion. This has accelerates administrative buy-in for UD.

Context (contd.)

DS providers have witnessed a shift in paradigm within which their traditionally ‘minority voice’ has been adopted and integrated by a neo-liberal perspective and agenda on diversity and retention.

The contextual shift has been so sudden that many units have developed elaborate PR campus wide campaigns and UD implementation initiatives but not taken the time to re-examine their own practices.

Context – Demographics and current trends at McGill OSD

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of students registered at McGill OSD

Objectives of the presentation

Highlight this contradiction in processesEvaluate its impactExamine the causes of this phenomenonSeek pragmatic solutions that are

transferable from institution to institution

Contradiction in processes

DS units appear open to the implementation of UD but are simultaneously resistant

Historically DS units have increased barriers rather than decreased them

The onerous administrative burden is firmly established and anchored in the medical model of Disability (even when the social model of Disability is advocated)

When asked to review their procedures, most UD providers push back and insist on the status quo (CADSPPE conference 2012)

Implementation of the UD model

Five distinct stages

- Seeding of information- Structured increase of

awareness (workshops and awareness initiatives)

- On-the-ground procedural changes

- Resistance- UD audits and sustainable

implementationNB: resistance is both internal and external to the DS units and the audit phases usually coincide, internally and externally

Five stages of UD implementation

What stage has your institution reached?

Take a few minutes to discuss this with your colleagues.

- Seeding of information- Structured increase of awareness (workshops)- On-the-ground procedural changes - Resistance- UD audits and sustainable implementation

- NOT OVERT

- COMPLEX AND SUBTLE

- DISCUSSED LITTLE IN LITERATURE

- POWERFUL PHENOMENON

- RESISTANT TO MOTIVATIONAL LEADERSHIP TECHNIQUES

Internal Resistance

Team exercise Take a few minutes to discuss this question with your colleagues

What are according to you the strongest areas of resistance encountered when attempting UD audits within DS providers?

Particular examples of resistance

Qualitative data collected through a one year pilot on UD implementation

Possible areas of resistance can include:

- Advocating for a status quo on documentation requirements

- Insisting on high volume of form filling

- Insisting on face-to-face advising

- IT abandonment or even initial resistance

- Insisting on interventions even when UD mechanism yield tangible results for a student

Possible Impact

Serious issues that go to the root of UD promotion: credibility with other campus partners and stakeholders

Confusion: the benefit of implementing the UD model is to share a common language and framework

UD promotion requires a redeployment of staff resources. Adherence to previous roles and procedures can threaten viability of service provision.

Confusion for users: mixed messages/ credibility with user base

HR management of staff burnout and attrition rates if phenomenon is not addressed

Causes

Resistance from DS providers is already well documented (Embry, Parker, McGuire & Scott, 2003). Observations include:

Feeling of powerlessness vis-à-vis facultyAmbivalence with regards to change processDesire to remain focused on frontline serviceLack of familiarity with the social model of

Disability and with UD

Causes (contd.)

Self-perceptions of competence and appeal of ‘specialist’ status

Phenomenon of counter-transference re student expectations

Issues of IT competence and creativityJustification of existing tasks and job

descriptionInaccurate perceptions of the needs of

emerging clienteles

Transferable solutions

Solutions include:

Internal training and workshops

Strategic planning, linking procedural changes to larger theoretical framework

Developing appeal of the redeployment of resources

Transferable solutions (contd.)

Building awareness of social model of Disability within the unit

Relating notions of access and UD to unit practices and office procedures

IT Training and development of bridging competencies

Development of consistent and concise internal UD audit tools

Desired outcomes

Hybrid service provisionProgressive erosion of documentation requirements

and gatekeeping rolesActive audit of procedures and requirementsStreamlining of proceduresConsistent holistic message to the userOpenness to change and integration of change

managementSeamless integration of technology (not solely

adaptive technology but mainstream tools) Investigative approach to user needs

Contact details

Frederic FovetDirector, Office for Students with DisabilitiesMcGill Universityfrederic.fovet@mcgill.ca