The lived experiences of faulty and accessibility service providers can vary significantly in higher education. This interactive live session will create an opportunity for a multidisciplinary reflection around the optimal ways to bridge the conflicting visions and experiences these two groups of key stakeholders have in relation to UDL adoption in the post-secondary classroom.  The term ‘two solitudes’ is often used in Canada to describe the cultural isolation and suspicion French and English communities develop in relation to each other. This concept will be used in this live interactive session to encourage participants to reflect on the differing views, visions and lived experiences of faculty and accessibility service personnel in relation to the adoption and implementation of UDL in the post-secondary sector. It will create an opportunity for a multidisciplinary reflection around the optimal ways to bridge the conflicting visions and experiences these two groups of key stakeholders have in relation to UDL adoption in the post-secondary classroom. This facilitated collective brainstorming session will support participants as they seek to (i) understand the cause of these conflicting subjective realities in relation to inclusion in the classroom, (ii) reflect on practices that may bridge these conflicting views, (iii) formulate calls for action which may be useful to campuses to nurture multistakeholder involvement as they promote UDL implementation.

1. Tackling the two solitudes. Bridging the conflicting
lived realities of faculty and accessibility personnel
within UDL implementation
Frederic Fovet, PhD.
AHEAD 2023 Conference, Unity: How Staff and Learner Communities Drive
Inclusion
Day 2 Keynote

2. Land Acknowledgement
• Thompson Rivers University
campuses are on the traditional
lands of the Tk'emlúps te
Secwépemc (Kamloops campus)
and the T’exelc (Williams Lake
campus) within
Secwépemc'ulucw, the
traditional and unceded
territory of the Secwépemc. The
region TRU serves also extends
into the territories of the
St’át’imc, Nlaka’pamux,
Tŝilhqot'in, Nuxalk, and Dakelh

3. Context
• The focus on inclusion in tertiary education has grown exponentially over the last
decade. Giant steps have taken place to create awareness around learner diversity
• Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has established itself in this same decade as a
sustainable and hands-on framework with wide credibility, to support these efforts
towards inclusion
• AND YET…
• Still an enormous amount of friction as to how to implement UDL within tertiary
institutions
• Strategic tension in relation to the scaling up of UDL initiatives and systemic
organizational buy-in
• Very different realities are developing in relation to what UDL implementation looks
like
• Instructor and accessibility personnel are developing subjective constructs around
the phenomenon of implementation which often clash

4. Objectives of the session
(i) explore the cause of the conflicting
subjective realities instructors and accessibility
staff have in relation to inclusion in the
classroom,
(ii) reflect on practices that may bridge these
conflicting views,
(iii) formulate calls for action which may be
useful to campuses to nurture multistakeholder
involvement as they promote UDL
implementation
A supporting website has been created to
provide more detailed content around this
keynote, in an effort to model UDL in the
interactions with participants within the
conference: www.twosolitudes.ca

5. Menti activity
• Please visit www.menti.com and I will
generate a polling code for the activty
• We will take a few minutes to gauge the
perceptions of the room before we begin.
How do you perceive/ would describe the
relationship between faculty and
accessibility services folks to be currently
in your institution/ sector?
• Highly collaborative and reciprocal
• Collaborative in nature but limited in
opportunities
• Somewhat collaborative but with few
options for dialogue
• Dichotomous and not optimal
• Tense and problematic

6. Misconceptions about faculty stances on
UDL and inclusion
• Historically, momentum for the inclusion of students with disabilities in the
tertiary sector has been generated by stakeholders other than instructors
(accessibility services, teaching and learning services, instructional designers,
etc.)
• As a result, instructors often can feel as though inclusive policies in tertiary
are imposed on them from the outside.
• Vice versa faculty can be perceived as pushing back against the inclusion
mandate.

7. Misconceptions about faculty positions
• Common misconceptions include – which are perpetuated and must be
debunked include:
- “Faculty routinely ignore accessibility requirements
- Faculty use academic freedom to avoid accountability when it comes to
inclusion
- Faculty can be challenging to engage in relation to accessibility and inclusion
- Many faculty see UDL and inclusion as a passing fad
- Faculty lack an authentic understanding of the lived experiences of students
with disabilities
- Faculty can get frustrated by the lack of prescriptive guidance they receive in
relation to legal accommodations”

8. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof faculty in the complex
landscapeof UDLimplementation
• Insights but few opportunities for dialogue
• A study I carried out in relation to inclusive design and student MH showed
faculty as having specific insights into accessibility issues but few spaces
within which to share these experiences (Fovet, 2020b)
• Mounting competing pressures in respect of neoliberal quality assurance
mechanisms
• Ability to manage large classes, format of course evaluations, and students’
initial reticence to embrace UDL and an inclusive design mindset.
• Overloaded and under-resourced
• The workload of instructors has changed drastically over the last decade
• “Doing more with less” is very much the line adopted globally in faculties

9. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof faculty in the complex
landscapeof UDLimplementation(contd.)
• Hurdles created by a movement towards de-professionalization of teaching
• Automation in grading are an example of the trend which leaves instructors less and
less room to be creative, authentic, and flexible (Gallagher & Breines, 2023). Online
proctoring has also been an example of this trend during COVID
• Departmental politics
• There may be many competing pressures felt by faculty, particularly if they are junior
and un-tenured. Departments are highly politicized environment where ‘towing’ the
line may be the only door to permanent employment.
• Distinct issues of ‘leadership for inclusion’ in the tertiary sector
• Competing pedagogical mandates
• Instructors have other pedagogical concerns to focus on. Accessibility is not the only
theoretical lens they are encouraged to apply: social constructivism, constructivism,
experiential learning, critical pedagogy, etc. They may find it challenging to find the
“happy place” where these pedagogical objectives overlap with accessibility.

10. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof faculty in the complex
landscapeof UDLimplementation(contd.)
• Lack of close affiliation with departments and faculties
• An astounding percentage of instructors now work part-time and outside
faculty hours (Egan et al, 2015). They may have tenuous feelings of
affiliations, and may not be aware of departmental priorities in terms of
teaching (Fovet, under review)
• Lack of clarity in respect to who has responsibility to support UDL
professional development for faculty
• Since the introduction of UDL in the tertiary sector, very distinct stakeholders
have been in charge of its development (accessibility, teaching and learning,
instructional designers, senior administration, etc.). Instructor onboarding is
famously chaotic, and many may not know who to engage with.

11. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof faculty in the complex
landscapeof UDLimplementation(contd.)
• Endemic theoretical confusion on campuses (medical model vs. social model
practices)
• UDL development is taking place amidst a ongoing adherence to medical
model practices. This can be very confusing to faculty who have not been
exposed to the social model of disability.
• Fear of exposure
• The mediatization of social justice issues and the rapid increase in human
rights claims from students have at times backfired and made instructors
nervous of even entering this space of dialogue

12. Misconception about accessibility
services
• Historically, accessibility have by default needed to step in and take the bull by the
horns
• They have in the large part been responsible for the initial push towards UDL and
inclusive design.
• This has been a onerous burden and one that had created much push back across
institutions.
• As a result, these are frequent misconceptions which are shared in relation to
accessibility services and the UDL agenda:
- “Accessibility services staff do not understand about teaching
- Accessibility services staff ask us to change pedagogy but they perpetuate a
bureaucratic delivery model
- Accessibility services are funded more generously than we are
Accessibility services generate confusing and ambivalent messaging about inclusion”

13. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof accessibilityservices
personnelin the complexlandscapeof UDLimplementation
• Battles with contradictory funding model
• The adoption of UDL has always been problematic for accessibility services when
they remain locked into medical model funding.
• Challenging position of functioning and growing in ambivalent theoretical
frameworks
• Lack of credibility with campus partners (Do as we say, not as we do)
• Contentious issue of funding from student source
• Increasing exhaustion among a landscape of exploding demands for services and
limited resources
• With an ever increasing volume of requests for services, and flatlined budgets,
accessibility services are battling exhaustion.
• Issue of sustainability in a landscape which is and will remain neoliberal in terms of
funding
• Doing more with less is to remain the approach for the next decade, irrespective of
volume

14. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof accessibilityservices
personnelin the complexlandscapeof UDLimplementation
(contd.)
• Considerable COVID exhaustion that has not been sufficiently
acknowledged (Knott, 2023)
• We have been quick to claim a ‘return to normal’ without fully gauging
the impact of the pandemic on staff morale
• Challenges retaining and attracting staff
• Many accessibility services globally report challenges in hiring
• Impact of exhaustion and rising stress
• Mass departure of boomers who have created these services

15. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof accessibilityservices
personnelin the complexlandscapeof UDLimplementation
(contd.)
• Exhaustion from being given the added and onerous burden of triggering UDL momentum
• Accessibility services were historically frequently called on to take on the UDL mandate/
drive
• Task carried out within an ambivalent stance, with no funding – often carried out as
volunteering
• Has attracted backlash and push back/ ‘shoot the messenger’ in tense landscape, rather
than seriously consider the message
• Accessibility services often being perceived as pushing yet another ‘fad’ – burden of
demonstrating the viability of the model and its need
• Significant amount of insight regarding accessibility in teaching and learning but few
opportunities to share
• Again my study on inclusive design and MH showed that accessibility staff had specific
insights and feedback to offer on accessibility of courses and assignments.
• No avenue of communication to share these observations

16. Understandingthe livedexperiencesof accessibilityservices
personnelin the complexlandscapeof UDLimplementation
(contd.)
• Heavy burden of hierarchical divide: staff versus faculty
• Tertiary institutions are oddly hierarchical and status driven
• Much more so at this stage than society as a whole
• Creates specific hurdles when creating or initiating new collaborations/ breaking
down silos (we actually have segregated spaces in the post-secondary sector)
• Mounting tension with respect to the EDI movement which largely ignores
accessibility/ competition for visibility
• The hope was that the EDI movement would give accessibility a boost
• Has not been the case and accessibility is frequently left out of EDI initiatives
(Aquino, 2022)
• Yet more work for accessibility services in terms of advocacy

17. Navigating wider systemic hurdles

18. Wider Systemic Hurdles
• The issues highlighted are problematic when it comes to the scaling up of UDL within
tertiary institutions as these are two key stakeholders
• The issues are symptomatic of wider systemic issues in the sector
• Issues with communication channels
• These historical institutions are perpetuating a silo approach which represents a
major hurdle when it comes to achieving multidisciplinary approaches to inclusion
• Tertiary institutions are segregated environments where initiating dialogue out
existing channels is almost impossible
• Hierarchical issues related to historical structures and institutional status
• The tertiary sector is overly focused on status, rank, and titles.
• This mindset is perpetuated rather than eroded currently
• Major hurdle when it comes to creating multidisciplinary teams focused on inclusion

19. Wider Systemic Hurdles (contd.)
• Fragmentation of support and silo mentality
• Intersectionality is talked about in the tertiary sector but not acknowledge in the
service delivery model
• Fragmentation of approaches is the modus operandi
• Silos are very challenging to break down. Even faculty are locked into disciplines
• Funding model that is obsolete
• All jurisdictions globally have acknowledged that the funding for inclusion is obsolete
• Process of change is bureaucratic, cumbersome and slow
• Factors of resistance are not being proactively addressed
• Mirrors challenges encountered in the K-12 sector
• It will be impossible to fully embrace UDL until the funding model is dissociate from
medical model processes/ diagnostic pathway

20. Wider Systemic Hurdles (contd.)
• A discourse that currently does not invite in allies that do not have a disability
background
• Diversity is not just about disability
• The UDL discourse does not currently invite in allies and other organic stakeholders
• UDL is pertinent to a large percentage of the student population
• This can give UDL momentum and turn the UDL discourse into a ‘majority discourse’
• Absence of strategic pre-implementation planning
• Many institutions still venturing into UDL in a sporadic, ad hoc fashion
• Little forward planning involved
• Urgent need for ecological mapping of institutions and for

21. Need for an ecological lens on UDL
implementation across institutions

23. Looking ahead - Connecting this Reflection to the
Path 4 UDL Funding Initiative
• A rare opportunity for a rethink
• Traditional funding models have perpetuated the status quo so this initiative
is welcomed
• Opportunity for genuine multidisciplinary development around UDL
• “To support an evidenced-based whole-of-tertiary, whole-of-education and
whole-of-Government approach, which will inform future policy on successful
transitions to and within higher education for students with intellectual
disabilities.” (HEA, 2022)
• Perhaps even a window for interdisciplinary initiatives around UDL adoption

24. Looking ahead - Connecting this Reflection to the
Path 4 UDL Funding Initiative (contd.)
• Need to acknowledge that the wording of this initiative goes well beyond
disability and must encompass all diverse learners.
• The Irish scholarship on UDL has not thus far been focused on the relevance
of UDL for the full spectrum of diverse learners (International, first
generation, racialized, Indigenous, etc.)
• Immediate relevance of UDL for the creation of inclusive provisions for Roma
students (DFHE, 2023)
• A caveat: possible additional pressure for campuses
• “To understand how engagement in higher education can support real
outcomes, including employment, for students with intellectual disabilities.”
(HEA, 2022)

25. Looking ahead - Connecting this Reflection to the
Path 4 UDL Funding Initiative
• A commitment to a multidisciplinary approach which breaks the historical
adherence to medical model policies
• “To enable the creation of an inclusive environment in higher education which can be
accessed by all and which supports increased engagement, progression and success
for all students, benefiting all priority groups in the NAP, (including students with
intellectual disabilities and autistic students). (HEA, 2022)
• Clear priority regarding ‘whole campus’ capacity building
• To develop the higher education sector’s capacity for inclusive teaching, learning and
assessment to enable greater opportunities for participation in higher education by
all students including students with intellectual disabilities and autistic students.”
(HEA, 2022)
• Caveat: These objectives do not just relate to funding solutions and will imply a
broad desire to tackle the structural hurdles identified in this talk (fragmentation,
historical baggage, and misperceptions among stakeholders)

26. Looking ahead – Solutions and reforms

27. Looking ahead - Solutions and Reform
• For international colleagues and friends from beyond Ireland:
• Urgent need to battle the silo mentality and structural fragmentation which hinders
UDL growth
• If barriers to learning lie in the environment, UDL integration must target the entire
tertiary landscape. It takes a village.
• Funding model is obsolete and must urgently be reformed: at present no funding
envelope for the professional development of faculty or for the redesign work
required
• There will be push back against these funding reforms and unfortunately they
generally come from within: fears and misconceptions about innovative funding
models.

28. Looking ahead - Solutions and Reform
(contd.)
• Importance of involving unions – these represent significant changes in the
way we frame faculty workload
• Importance of seeing inclusive redesign as a sustainable process of change
but one that also requires an allocation of resources/ must be budgeted for
and acknowledged in workforce planning.
• Acknowledging that an inclusive approach to student diversity must be
osmotic and allow in other pedagogical theories and initiatives (overlap
rather than narrow, closed delineation)
• Issue of leadership in tertiary: the promotion process means that we
currently have at the head of departments folks who began their careers 40
years ago. Few of them have PD or training in inclusion/ UDL
• Importance of carving out a space for UDL growth within an oppressive
landscape of neoliberal pressures

29. Remaining questions
• We will now have approximately
15 minutes for questions and
interactive discussions!
• We will also use a padlet:
https://edswgrad.padlet.org/ffo
vet1/tackling-the-two-solitudes-
bridging-the-conflicting-lived-
re-tid02xb9gpjg5ble
• What are some of the questions
and comments you would like
to see addressed as we finish
this reflection today?

30. Resources
Aquino, K. (2022) Exploring Postsecondary Administrators’ Inclusion of Disability within Their Definition of Student Diversity.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(5), 1565-1572, DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2020.1808951
Chita-Tegmark, M., Gravel, J. W., Maria De Lourdes, B. S., Domings, Y., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Using the Universal Design for
Learning Framework to Support Culturally Diverse Learners. Journal of Education, 192(1), 17–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741219200104
Department of Further and Higher Education [DFHE] (2022, March 21) Travellers and Roma in higher education supported, as
Minister Harris announces rollout of €450,000. Government of Ireland. https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/1ca63-travellers-
and-roma-in-higher-education-supported-as-minister-harris-announces-rollout-of-450000/#
Dickinson, K. J., & Gronseth, S. L. (2020). Application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Principles to Surgical Education
During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of surgical education, 77(5), 1008–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.06.005
Eagan, M.K., Jaeger, A.J., & Grantham, A. (2015) Supporting the Academic Majority: Policies and Practices Related to Part-Time
Faculty's Job Satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 448-483. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2015.11777371
Fovet, F. (2021) Developing an Ecological Approach to Strategic UDL Implementation in Higher Education. Journal of Education
and Learning, 10(4).
Fovet, F. (Ed.) (2021) Handbook of Research on Applying Universal Design for Learning Across Disciplines: Concepts, Case
Studies, and Practical Implementation. IGI Global
Fovet, F. (2020) Universal Design for Learning as a Tool for Inclusion in the Higher Education Classroom: Tips for the Next
Decade of Implementation. Education Journal. Special Issue: Effective Teaching Practices for Addressing Diverse Students’ Needs
for Academic Success in Universities, 9(6), 163-172.
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=196&doi=10.11648/j.edu.20200906.13
Fovet, F. (2020b) Exploring the Potential of Universal Design for Learning with Regards to Mental Health Issues in Higher
Education. Pacific Rim International Conference on Disability & Diversity Proceedings, 4.
https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/pacrim/2020/Articles/4/

31. Resources (contd.)
Fovet, F. (2019) Not just about disability: Getting traction for UDL implementation with International Students.
In: Kate Novak & Sean Bracken (Eds.) Transforming Higher Education through Universal Design for Learning: An
International Perspective, Routledge.
Gallagher, M., & Breines, M. (2023) Unpacking the Hidden Curricula in Educational Automation: A Methodology
for Ethical Praxis. Postdigital Science and Education, 5, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00342-z
Hills, M., Overend, A., & Hildebrandt, S. (2022). Faculty perspectives on UDL: Exploring bridges and barriers for
broader adoption in higher education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1).
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.13588
James, K. (2018) Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a Structure for Culturally Responsive Practice. Northwest
Journal of Teacher Education, 13(1), Article 4.
Kennette, L., & Wilson, N. (2019) Universal Design for Learning: What is it and how do I implement it?
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning, 12(1)
Kilpatrick, J.R.., Ehrlich, S., & Bartlett, M. (2021) Learning from COVID-19: Universal Design for Learning
Implementation Prior to and During a Pandemic. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design.
https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_10_1/universal_design_forS
Knott, K. (2023, February 21) OCR Complaints Show Pandemic’s Effects. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/21/civil-rights-complaints-show-pandemics-effects-colleges
Sheik Mohamed, S.A., & Sivakumar, R. (2020). Inclusiveness in Higher Education through Universal Design
Learning – UDL. Think India Journal, 22(45), 23-26. https://thinkindiaquarterly.org/index.php/think-
india/article/view/19702

32. Contact details
• Frederic Fovet (PhD.)
• Assistant Professor, School of Education, Thompson Rivers University
• ffovet@tru.ca
• UDL and Inclusion Consultant
• Implementudl@gmail.com
• @Ffovet
• www.implementudl.com