The social production of disability through inclusion policies and programmes: the cases of three Chilean universities

This chapter examines the perception of inclusiveness in Ukrainian higher education institutions, analyzing the culture, policies and practices that aim to create a more open and diverse educational environment. In the context of global efforts to promote sustainable development and achieve its goals, the article examines how inclusive higher education initiatives can respond to contemporary challenges by promoting equal access to quality education for all higher education seekers, including vulnerable groups. On the basis of a large-scale study, conducted among students of higher education of various specialties and levels of study (a total of 4,436 people) and employees of higher education institutions, including administrative, teaching and support staff (a total of 821 people), the authors identify key barriers and opportunities for improving inclusiveness in Ukrainian universities, through the prism of indicators "Inclusive culture in higher education", "Inclusive policy in higher education" and "Inclusive practices in higher education", emphasizing the importance of integrated approaches that contribute to quality education and ensure sustainable development of society. The authors offer recommendations for improving inclusive culture, policies, and practices, emphasizing the need for resource support and curriculum flexibility to meet diverse educational needs.

This chapter examines the perception of inclusiveness in Ukrainian higher education institutions, analyzing the culture, policies and practices that aim to create a more open and diverse educational environment. In the context of global efforts to promote sustainable development and achieve its goals, the article examines how inclusive higher education initiatives can respond to contemporary challenges by promoting equal access to quality education for all higher education seekers, including vulnerable groups. On the basis of a large-scale study, conducted among students of higher education of various specialties and levels of study (a total of 4,436 people) and employees of higher education institutions, including administrative, teaching and support staff (a total of 821 people), the authors identify key barriers and opportunities for improving inclusiveness in Ukrainian universities, through the prism of indicators "Inclusive culture in higher education", "Inclusive policy in higher education" and "Inclusive practices in higher education", emphasizing the importance of integrated approaches that contribute to quality education and ensure sustainable development of society. The authors offer recommendations for improving inclusive culture, policies, and practices, emphasizing the need for resource support and curriculum flexibility to meet diverse educational needs.

One consequence of the hype around globalization and education and debates on global political actors such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO—is that there has not been sufficient attention paid by education theorists to the development of a rigorous set of analytic categories that might enable us to make sense of the profound changes which now characterize education in the new millennium. 1 This is not a problema confined to education. Writing in the New Left Review, Fredric Jameson observes that debates on globalization have tended to be shaped by “…ideological appropriations— discussions not of the process itself, but of its effects, good or bad: judgements, in other words, totalizing in nature; while functional descriptions tend to isolate particular elements without relating them to each other.” In this paper we start from the position that little or nothing can be explained in terms of the causal powers of globalization; rather we shall be suggesting that globalization is the outcome of processes that involve real actors—economic and political—with real interests. Following Martin Shaw, we also take the view that globalization does not undermine the state but includes the transformation of state forms; “…it is both predicated on and produces such transformations.”3 Examining how these processes of transformation work, however, requires systematic investigation into the organization and strategies of particular actors whose horizons or effects might be described as global.

Applied Anthropology provides a new perspective on today’s higher education environment. Volatile and unpredictable forces affect research and instruction across many sectors and levels, and global dynamics are among the strongest drivers of change. Further, within American higher education, daunting complexity and multiple layers of activity weave a rich tapestry of environment, structure, and culture.This book provides three complementary anthropological perspectives as a framework for analyzing the ground-shifting changes underway in higher education — the higher education mindset, political and policy perspectives, and instruction and learning. These domains intersect with many operational dimensions of higher education — research, health care, athletics, economic development, fiscal management, planning, and faculty roles/challenges — another way of framing the complexity of the situation we are addressing. Book chapters also provide a set of implications for higher education policy. The book concludes with a vision of next steps in research and practice to further anthropology’s contribution to higher education policy and practice.The intended audience includes both academic and professionals–e.g., faculty and students in departments of higher education, anthropology, and education policy. Higher education leaders, administrators, governing board members, and many others will find the book helpful in providing insight into today’s challenges. The book will also be of use to professionals outside higher education who work on policy issues, on meeting the needs of employers, and on preparing students for careers in public service.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the factors that affect the perception of the implementation of the ICT policy in education in the empirical context of higher education in Namibia from a students’ perspective. The paper explains the current situation regarding ICT policy in higher education in Namibia. There are no studies that could be found to have measured these factors in a developing country in Africa. A quantitative approach was followed in this study. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and were analysed by means of descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. The perception of the implementation of the ICT policy in higher education in Namibia is affected mostly by lack of ICT literacy and limited access to learning and training content. Some of the challenges from past studies were also reconfirmed in this study, though they were investigated in a different context. This study also identified new challenges that affect the perception of the implementation of ICT policy in higher education, specifically from a developing country context. The findings in this study should be confirmed by further research to help developing economies evaluate their ICT policies in education and their outcomes.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsTimothy C. CaboniTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.John M. BraxtonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Molly Black DeusterhausTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Meaghan E. MundyTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Shederick A. McClendonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Stephanie D. LeeTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Reviewed by: Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives Kelly Ward and Meghan Levi Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, edited by Elizabeth Allan, Susan Van Deventer Iverson, & Rebecca Ropers-Huilman. Routledge, 2009. 272 pp. $145.00 (cloth). ISBN 978-0-415-99776-8. What is feminist poststructuralism? Why is it important? How can it be useful to advance policy conversations related to higher education? Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, a volume edited by Elizabeth Allan, Susan Van Deventer Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, addresses these and other questions related to advancing the creation, implementation, and use of policy conversations. The book is a valuable resource for administrators, policy makers, researchers, and students wanting to think in new and different ways about policy affecting colleges and universities. For readers not familiar with feminist poststructuralism (FPS) and policy analysis, the book is foundational and informative. In Chapters 1 and 2, the editors provide a reminder about some of the core concepts related to policy and they address how feminist poststructuralism can be used to problematize "what has come to be taken-for granted as 'normal' everyday practice" (p. 2). Chapter 2 authored by Elizabeth Allan is particularly helpful for readers to understand FPS and all the other "posts" bantered about in higher education circles. Because the tenets of FPS are so clearly laid out as a tool of analysis, readers can use this knowledge to examine situations common to higher education that are threaded throughout the remaining chapters. The approach to policy analysis put forth by the editors widens the audience and is a guide for those new to the study of FPS and higher education policy. The book is particularly useful to analyze gender in contemporary policy discourses yet it is not limited to people interested in gender. FPS as a tool of analysis is far reaching. Part 1 of the book entitled Productions of Power through Presence with Absence includes three chapters that critically analyze the dominant, neoliberal narrative prominent in higher education. This part of the book presents historical and macroscopic perspectives of policy, discourse, and FPS in higher education. In Chapter 3 Jana Nidiffer offers FPS as a "corrective" agent to view the history of higher education by asking, "Who benefits from the story being told in this particular way and what are the consequences of having knowledge framed in this manner?" (p. 44). Her work brings forth the silent narrative of the female student suffragist movement all but missing from higher education history texts. In Chapter 4 Tatiana Suspitsyna questions the contemporary articulations of the purpose of higher education by using Foucault's (1972) view [End Page 460] of discourse and power as productive not repressive. Through an analysis of documents from the Department of Education, almost entirely authored by Secretary Margaret Spelling, Suspitsyna deconstructs the purpose of higher education. The results strongly suggest that a neoliberal market discourse reinforces the hegemonic masculine status quo in contemporary higher education. The same notion of man as ideal consumer of higher education is also present in the discourse surrounding leadership in higher education. In Chapter 5 Gordon, Iverson, and Allan use The Chronicle of Higher Education to examine the how dominant notions of femininity and masculinity were used to "produce gendered images of leaders" (p. 82). Not surprisingly, female leaders were portrayed as "caretaker" and "vulnerable" leaders among other labels. The authors provide several examples used in their analysis that provide further context for "the double bind" conflict female professionals at all levels experience (p. 90). Part 2, Subjects and Objects of Policy, is focused on students and is likely to be of particular interest to those who work with students. The chapters help readers see how policy works discursively for students on paper, but against students in action. In Chapter 6, Susan Talburt used the idea of "becoming" to show how the university rhetoric of "involvement" actually creates what Foucault (1977) described as, "normalizing judgment" (p. 183). In the case of LGBT students, Talburt explores the tensions between a discourse of victimization and the roles of student as both active subject and passive object of university policy created for and by...

Based on the English experience, this chapter explores inclusion policy in higher education (HE) inclusion policy; it follows the introduction of the 2010 Equality Act and the subsequent Children and Families Act (2014) which impacted HE provision. The chapter draws on discursive institutionalism in order to chart the shifts in political understanding and approaches to educational inclusion over time. Viewing policy through the lens of discourse demonstrates how emergent ideas are constructed, defined and articulated throughout the policy process: In other words, it reveals the significance of the language of documentation changes and highlights the development of ideas from formation to acceptance and enactment, as well as signifying key actors involved, or appealed to, in the construction of the policy narrative. Of course, no policy occurs within a vacuum and the chapter contextualizes the HE inclusion policy process in England with reference to the wider global and international influences that hold sway over national political processes. The chapter proposes lessons for the developing world in formulating and enacting HE inclusion policy.

Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, of colleges and universities, college students and their parents. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services to help retain students, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, colleges, universities, and parents of students who are attending college and of students themselves. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Contributors: Some of the leading educators who study college student retention contributed to this book. All are truly dedicated to helping students achieve their individual academic and personal goals. A list of each and their affiliation follows: Alexander W. Astin: Allan M. Cartter Professor of Higher Education at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Director of the Higher Education Research Institute. Elizabeth Barlow: Executive Director of Institutional Research at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas. John Bean: Associate Professor of Higher Education at Indiana University, Bloomington. Joseph B. Berger: Associate Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Educational Policy, Research, and Administration in the School of Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. John Braxton: Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program in the Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Kurt Burkum: Doctoral student and Ostar Fellow in the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State University. Alberto F. Cabrera: Specializes in research methodologies, college choice, college students, classroom experiences, minorities in higher education, and economics of education. Gloria Crisp: Doctoral student in educational leadership with a focus on higher education in the department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies, College of Education at the University of Houston. Linda Hagedorn: Associate professor and the associate director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA), as well as the program chair for the Community College Leadership program in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Steve LaNasa: Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Planning at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, where he is responsible for outcomes assessment, planning, and program evaluation. Amy S. HirschyAssistant professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and the Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville. Stephanie D. Lee Doctoral student in the Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Susan C. Lyon: Works in the Office of Student Affairs in the School of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thomas G. Mortensen: Senior Scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, D.C., and an independent higher education policy analyst living in Oskaloosa, Iowa. Amaury Nora: Professor of Higher Education and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development in the College of Education at the University of Houston. Leticia Oseguera: Doctoral candidate in the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Education's Higher Education and Organizational Change program. Alan Seidman: The creator and editor of the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. John H. Schuh: Distinguished professor of educational leadership at Iowa State University, Ames, where he is also department chair. Vincent Tinto: Distinguished University Professor at Syracuse University and chair of the higher education program.

Inclusive education in higher education is a topic of increasing importance. Inclusion is essential to reduce educational inequalities, ensuring not only access, but also the permanence of students, promoting equity and social justice. Thus, this study carried out an analysis of the "Overview of the process of inclusion of people with disabilities in Brazilian higher education", the objective of this research is to understand the challenges that higher education has been facing to guarantee these rights and meet the specific needs of students with disabilities. The methodology used was an integrative review that analyzed the relevant academic publications on inclusive education in higher education, available in the databases of the Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations and Scientific Electronic Library Online, from 2014 to 2024. The qualitative results revealed that the inclusion process is still in its early stages, indicating the need to reform inclusion policies in higher education, invest in the continuous training of teachers, improve university infrastructure and implement financial support actions for students with disabilities, aiming to provide the necessary resources to overcome the limitations of disability. It was concluded that it is necessary to monitor more closely the practical implementation of inclusion policies.

This article studies the development of higher education (HE) policies in Argentina and Finland and examines what are the principles behind HE laws and policies, and whether the policies promote or prevent social equality. We apply genealogical document analysis and interpretive policy analysis to look for differences and similarities, and to place them in societal and historical context in order to make plausible interpretations. We contrast properties of social systems and patterns of policy practices that describe the character of HE institutions in Argentina and Finland. By creating country cases, we, analyze the HE policies of the democratic era in Argentina and Finland to find out whether and how the policies aim at reducing social inequalities in HE. We conclude that along with market logic in education policies, inequalities in HE tend to increase even in a Nordic welfare state like Finland. Este artículo analiza la manera en que las políticas públicas de Educación Superior (ES) de Argentina y Finlandia contribuyen o no a reducir las desigualdades sociales en sus respectivos sistemas universitarios. Realizamos un análisis genealógico de documentos y un análisis interpretativo de las políticas para encontrar similitudes y diferencias, desarrollamos interpretaciones plausibles ubicándolas en su contexto social e histórico. Comparamos las características de los sistemas sociales y las tendencias de las políticas implementadas en las instituciones de ES en Argentina y Finlandia, mostrando su cercanía o lejanía respecto de los principios originariamente estatuidos en torno a la ES en cada país. Estudiamos los casos de Argentina y Finlandia, mediante el análisis de las políticas de ES en la era democrática para conocer si las políticas contribuyen a reducir las desigualdades sociales en la ES. Concluimos que las políticas educativas cuanto más se basan en la lógica del mercado, las desigualdades en la ES tienden a incrementarse, incluso, en el país nórdico con estado de bienestar.

Las políticas inclusivas en la educación superior se orientan a lograr que las instituciones contengan una diversidad racial, cultural y sexual semejante a la que existe en el seno de la sociedad, en procura de remediar discriminaciones históricas que han conducido a la situación de desigualdad por la que atraviesan esos grupos. En este sentido, la implementación en algunos países de Políticas de Acción Afirmativa en el ámbito de la educación superior procura una mayor integración social en sociedades caracterizadas por fragmentaciones de diferente naturaleza. En este trabajo nos proponemos abordar desde una perspectiva comparativa los alcances de las políticas públicas de inclusión en la universidad que se desarrollan en Argentina y Brasil, enmarcándolas en los rasgos diferenciales de sus estructuras sociales y sus sistemas de Educación superior.

Innovation policy in the field of higher education and science is one of the main components of the state socio-economic policy of social development and is aimed at creating favorable conditions for the market launch of new ideas created in this sphere. The purpose of the study is to analyze the decisive influence of academic capitalism on the formation of innovation policy in higher education and science, contributing to the creation of an innovative environment for transformational change in this sphere. The methodology of the research is based on an objective standardized approach to the analysis of factual data on the development and implementation of innovation policy in higher education systems and leading universities of the world, the latest published results of experiments, materials of scientific literature on innovation policy and innovation management. Research results. The main directions of innovation policy of entrepreneurial university and innovation relations in the sphere of higher education and science are investigated. It is shown that innovative transformations in the sphere of higher education and science, as a rule, take place within the framework of the innovative policy determined by the leaders of this sphere. It is noted that innovation policy in higher education is a link between the policy of research and scientific (scientific and technical) activities, search and dissemination of knowledge, education and training of qualified specialists in the field of technological development, industrial policy and environmental policy. The authors studied the following: the types of activities promoted by innovation in higher education and innovative environment of this activity; the main directions and main components of innovative policy of entrepreneurial university; innovative relations in higher education and science; innovative environment; the importance of having the necessary competencies, their formation and development; internal and external sources of competencies for universities, etc. Practical implications. The authors suggest that innovation policy in higher education is a link between the policy of research and scientific (scientific and technical) activities; search and dissemination of knowledge; education and training of qualified specialists – on the one hand, and technological development; industrial policy and environmental policy – on the other. This can be used in the creation of the theory and practice of innovation policy development in higher education. The article as a whole is devoted to the further development of the theoretical foundations of higher education innovatics.

Purpose: This research explores the impact of women’s transformational leadership on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) policies within higher education in the UK. Despite significant advancements in gender equity, the specific role of women leaders in shaping EDI policies has not been thoroughly investigated. Women remain underrepresented in senior academic leadership positions due to structural inequalities and cultural biases that prioritize male leadership. This study seeks to understand whether women leaders, through transformational leadership, can influence the development and implementation of EDI initiatives, fostering a more inclusive academic environment. Methodology: A meta-synthesis was conducted as part of a systematic review (6 tight-focussed articles) and meta-analysis (56 wider articles), following PRISMA guidelines, to examine the relationship between women’s leadership and EDI policies in higher education. The study synthesized evidence from diverse sources, evaluating the quality of included studies. The central research question was: Are women leaders and their leadership styles actively promoting EDI? The analysis integrates findings to assess the impact of women’s transformational leadership on advancing EDI initiatives, highlighting successes, challenges, and areas needing further exploration. Findings: The study reveals that women leaders who adopt transformational leadership styles significantly influence EDI policy development, aligning policies with institutional values and fostering inclusive academic environments. However, few women are afforded the opportunity to assume leadership roles, limiting the broader impact of such leadership. Institutions led by committed women leaders are more likely to implement comprehensive EDI strategies, affecting recruitment, promotion, and retention practices. Strong leadership correlates with robust EDI policies, enhancing staff and student outcomes. Faculty and students who perceive leaders as champions of diversity report higher engagement, greater job satisfaction, and improved collaboration and innovation. Originality/Theoretical Contribution: This research addresses a gap in the literature by linking women’s transformational leadership to EDI policy development in higher education – a relationship that has not been explicitly explored. The study contributes theoretically by demonstrating how leadership styles can shape institutional culture and policy implementation, providing a nuanced understanding of gender, leadership, and organizational change within academic contexts. Practical Implications: Findings offer actionable insights for university leaders and administrators: promoting women into senior roles can enhance the development and implementation of EDI policies. Leadership development programmes that foster transformational leadership among female academics could help institutions create more inclusive, equitable environments. Societal/Policy Implications: Women in transformational leadership positions can contribute to a fairer society by influencing institutional practices that promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. Policy interventions should focus on increasing women’s representation in executive and senior roles, ensuring EDI policies leverage women’s leadership potential. Broader societal benefits include enhanced organizational performance, improved workplace culture, and stronger support for historically marginalized groups. Limitations: This study is limited by the scarcity of research specifically addressing women’s leadership in higher education. Leadership in academia remains underexplored, particularly concerning the barriers female academics face and how they navigate systemic power dynamics. Additionally, while PRISMA meta-synthesis provides a structured approach, it may exclude studies using unconventional methodologies and risk oversimplifying complex phenomena. Despite these limitations, the approach highlights gaps and underexplored areas, paving the way for future interdisciplinary research.

This article reports on research into the discourse and application of ‘inclusion’ policies in higher education. Against the requirements in law ‘to make reasonable adjustments’ required in Section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995. Accessed 2 May 2020. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents), respond equally under the Equality Act (2020. Section 6. Accessed 2 May 2020. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/6) and ensure a safe environment. Drawing on the critical inquiry model of Denzin, N. (2017. “Critical Qualitative Inquiry.” Qualitative Inquiry 23 (1): 8–16), students with , non-apparent disabilities and special learning needs were invited to discuss their experience of feeling included at university. Through the exploration of the themes of widening participation, skills development and employability, we asked the students how they had experienced mental wellbeing through the practical application of inclusion policies in their programmes of study. Our findings show that while universities have responded very well to the legislation and endeavoured to address anti-discriminatory practice, more could be done to adjust the curriculum to ensure students’ positive mental wellbeing. Developments in curriculum change, even by modest adjustments, could work towards students’ feeling less anxious about their studies and ensure a fully inclusive experience.