In this blog post we offer some insights from a recent study among disabled staff and PhD students in the UK to consider what it means to un/belong in the current higher education (HE) sector.

What is belonging?

Though the concept of belonging is difficult to define, there is increasing evidence of its application within EDI discourses as well as scholarly attention with particular reference to students. For instance, a collaboration between WonkHE and Pearson examined students’ sense of belonging, reporting that connection, inclusion, support and autonomy are the ‘four foundations of belonging at university’ (see Blake et al., 2022). Elsewhere, researchers have advanced an argument that belonging is a relational, situated and processual experience, which is complexly linked to the digital and physical environment of a university (see Gravett & Ajjawi, 2022). Under such dynamic conditions of uncertainty, Gravett & Ajjawi (2022, p. 1388) contend that ‘there is an urgent need to question who can belong, how, and to where/whom?’ We designed our project to address these sorts of questions specifically as they apply to disabled staff and PhD students, whose support necessarily falls within institutional EDI efforts.

So what did we do?

As disability can no longer be understood in simplistic medical or social model positions but – like belonging – might be understood as an almalgum of social, material and critical knowledge-making capacities, we were eager to learn how disabled people navigate and contribute to higher education in ways that affect their sense of belonging. In total, we interviewed 19 participants: 13 disabled staff members, 2 PhD students, and 4 members of staff who were also completing doctorates from a range of universities across the UK. In keeping with our intention to engage ‘inclusive disability-orientated research’ (see Nind, 2017), we enhanced accessibility for participants by offering various adjustments including having access to interview questions in advance, additional processing time, holding shorter interviews, and movement breaks. Ethical clearance was granted by the institutional review board at both institutions.

What we found

As we will discuss at the BERA Conference 2024 and WERA Focal Meeting in Manchester in September, there were a number of pertinent themes which situated un/belonging along intersecting affective, relational, spatial and political lines.

Belonging was predominantly articulated in affective terms, often associated with feeling valued by and within institutions. As one participant explained:

‘it’s sort of feeling … comfortable with the people in your community, comfortable with knowing how you can accomplish different things, whether it be a part of life or part of your professional requirements. So it’s a feeling of comfort, I guess.’

Relational belonging, or a sense of connection, also played a significant role for many participants. They expressed this sense of the concept as fostered through staff networks, management, supervisors and peers; as another participant stated:

‘So there’s a bit of a feeling of solidarity … it’s definitely a contributor to belonging.’

However, experiencing un/belonging was also prevalent and experienced as practical and political encounters with ableist structures and policies. Participants highlighted challenges such as a lack of necessary reasonable adjustments, continually having to negotiate for accommodations, and inaccessible physical spaces. As one participant told us:

‘I’ve definitely felt – I’m made to feel like a nuisance and I’ve been made to very much feel like I’m the problem in terms of when I [inhales] when I ask for “unreasonable” things like videos being captioned. I’ve been copied into, again, 10, 20 emails about how much extra work it is that has to be done now.’

‘Actively creating space for un/belonging was viewed by some as a political act of subversion, therefore problematising the notion that belonging is inherently positive.’

These encounters often led to self-disciplining mechanisms, including the masking of impairments for those who could do so or withdrawing from social interactions. Interestingly, for others, actively creating space for un/belonging was viewed as a political act of subversion, therefore problematising the notion that belonging is inherently positive.

So what?

Our study develops some important implications for fostering disability knowledge and experience within institutional policies, curriculum and procedures. Under the increasingly neoliberal conditions within higher education, accessibility and reasonable adjustments have become highly individualised, which has reduced the capacity for relational and political belonging. However, what is starkly clear from our data is that disabled staff and PhD students can offer vital insights into the nature and experience of un/belonging and its potential to transform higher education.

This blog post relates to a paper presented at the BERA Conference 2024 and WERA Focal Meeting on Tuesday 10 September at 9:00am. Find out more by searching the conference programme here.

References

Blake, S., Capper, G., & Jackson, A. (2022) Building belonging in higher education: Recommendations for developing an integrated institutional approach. Pearson and WonkHE.

Gravett, K., & Ajjawi, R. (2022). Belonging as situated practice. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7), 1386–1396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1894118

Nind, M. (2017). The practical wisdom of inclusive research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117708123