Crenshaw (1991, p.1245) highlights the ‘need to account for multiple grounds for identity’ in understanding the construction of the social world and asserts that individuals with ‘multiple targeted identities’ are disempowered through hegemony and systemic inequality. These identities are tied to social group membership (Lukkien, Chauhan and Otaye-Ebede, 2024. p.3), one such group identity being disability. The Social Model of Disability suggests that disability is constructed by barriers in the hegemonic social world and that this world can be (re)designed to include the needs and differences of all individuals (UAL, no date).
What ‘makes people disabled is not their disability,’ rather it is barriers constructed in society; the Paralympics being evidence of an opportunity for ‘people to shine’ when these barriers are removed (Adeptian and Webborn, 2020). Whilst street level discrimination against both race and disability has reduced, the more difficult progress remains in tackling dominant social systems, and although Ade acknowledges his own empowered position as a sports and media personality, he represents both black and disabled identities and articulates the parallel struggle against systemic inequality (Ibid). He draws a comparison between the Paralympics and the Black Lives Matter movement as critical moments which made these struggles visible in the hegemonic social world. Whilst the narrative of his own lived experience alludes to the compounded disenfranchisement of intersectional identities, it was Stoke Mandeville hospital and the disability community where he found his ‘tribe’ (Ibid), this ultimately mitigating the disempowerment of being a Nigerian immigrant with polio growing up in East London.
Chay Brown (2023) explores complex intersectional identities as a trans, gay man, not neuro typical, and having experienced mental health difficulties, whilst acknowledging potential privilege within the trans community, as a white man. He identifies that for trans people, struggling with social situations and anxiety can present significant challenges specific to navigating the codes that exist within the LGBTQ+ community (Ibid). This highlights the complexity of intersecting identities within the membership of a wider disenfranchised group. Brown (2023) asserts that ‘If we’re not working for disabled trans people we’re not working for the trans community because we’re missing people out.’
Christine Sun Kim (2024), in her context as Asian American deaf artist, is driven to force the voice of the deaf community into the everyday lives of the hearing world. This is realized through her insistence on communicating through sign language, signs, symbols, infographics and scaled up captioning of the city – the sky; through creating a greater visibility of useful communications for deaf people she seeks to put deaf lives into the minds of the hearing, and challenge social norms (Ibid).
The common theme of these narratives is that the hegemonic (ableist) world, where the intersection of disability is made invisible, can be reconstructed at both the micro and macro level and provide access through making disabled people visible and included. If the world can be designed to accommodate differences, then it will work in optimizing opportunities for everyone.
In the context of UAL, data suggests that there are improving opportunities for attainment: students with declared disabilities (see fig.1), achieving an overall 3pp higher than those without (Campos-Barbi, 2025a, p14), although completion rates for disabled students are significantly lower (Campos-Barbi, 2025b, p.12), and crucially this data does not take into account the intersection of other multiple identities of disempowerment (Crenshaw, 1991). This lack of an intersectional lens points to positionality (Bayeck, 2022) in the data design, interpretation, and potential impact.
Figure 1. Attainment Rates by Disability (6 way) 1st– 2:1 (Campos-Barbi, 2025a, p.15)
Bayeck (2022, p.7) suggests it is the ‘complex interplay of identity, space and context’ that informs positionality. I consider the accessibility to learning spaces as afforded by the design of the university, and the design of my lessons in meeting the needs of complex student identities. However, I also consider this from the perspective of my own context as Language Development tutor. Crenshaw (1991, p.1249) identifies language barriers as a source of intersectional subordination which limit opportunity; language remains invisible in the UAL data. For example, a student asked me whether we could hold a tutorial online, they had disclosed to me that they had some mental health issues which prevented them from being able to attend in person; it was a small adjustment that I was happy to make. However, on reflection, did other aspects of privilege provide the agency for this solicitation? This student was female, white, British and speaks English as a first language. Would a more disenfranchising intersectionality have prevented this request from being made, resulting in a lack of participation? Would this have led to sub optimal attainment?
References
Adepitan, A. and Webborn, N. (2020). Nick Webborn interviews Ade Adepitan. ParalympicsGB Legends [Online]. Youtube. 27 August. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnRjdol_j0c (Accessed on 23.04.25)
Bayeck, R.Y. (2022) Positionality: ‘The Interplay of Space, Context and Identity,’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods Volume 21: 1–9: DOI: 10.1177/16094069221114745
Brown, C. (2023) Interview with ParaPride. Intersectionality in Focus: Empowering Voices during UK Disability History Month [Online]. Youtube. 13 December. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yID8_s5tjc (Accessed on 15.04.25)
Campos- Barbi, T. (2025a) UAL Undergraduate Attainment Report 2023-24 Available at: https://canvas.arts.ac.uk/documents/sppreview/1cdc0ff4-8830-4787-b187-f7db576ab259 (Accessed on 23.04.25)
Campos-Barbi, T. (2025b) UAL Undergraduate Completion Report 2023-24. Available at: https://canvas.arts.ac.uk/documents/sppreview/99c0212e-0eb0-47c0-97e9-2038d9d407cf (Accessed on 23.04.25)
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.’ Stanford Law Review 43 (6), pp.1241-1299
Lukkien, T., Chauhan, T. and Otaye‐Ebede, L. (2024) ‘Addressing the diversity principle–practice gap in Western higher education institutions: A systematic review on intersectionality.’ British Educational Research Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4096., pp2-7 and pp17-20
Sun, C. (2024). Christine Sun Kim in ‘Friends & Strangers’ – Season 11 | Art21. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/2NpRaEDlLsI (Accessed on 23.04.25)
UAL (no date) ‘The Social Model of Disability at UAL.’ Available at: https://youtu.be/mNdnjmcrzgw (Accessed on 19.04.25).
4 replies on “Inclusive Practice_ Blog Post One_ Disability”
How curious! Analysing the UAL data to uncover how disabled students have shown to do better is a remarkable achievement, however that is if they finish their studies, seeing as retention is lower for these classified students. For those who may be accessing the right support are shown to surpass their peers, which begs the question: would everyone benefit from additional support (an ISA) and reasonable adjustments? Are more people/students undiagnosed or undeclared than what the data shows? How can we adapt learning environments and curriculum design to benefit everyone?
I like how you summarise the provided resources in a succinct way, concluding that platforming voices helps to raise visibility and leads to better awareness and understanding.
Linking back to intersectionality, our workshop learning comes together well in this blog: bringing us back to the notion of overlapping identities and compounded marginalisation telling the more detailed truth of the student experience, and academic outcomes. In isolation, this standalone data cannot fully explain the nuances and diverse make up of the student body, and what is happening on the ground.
Using your role as an example, we begin to see how the lens of intersectionality also highlights privilege, too. Beyond what is recorded in characteristic data by UAL, an example of how an English-native speaker may feel more empowered to request more suitable support, without navigating other layers to get to a point to feel stable enough to even ask. This perspective is relevant in my work too, where we cannot assume confidence and comprehension from those who may be handling so much more than what is visible on the surface.
Hi Leila – Thanks for the comment. Yes, I think that the seeing past these assumptions is something that is likely to be relevant to a great number of practitioners in the university – and given the proportion of international students who do not speak English as a first language – this presents a significant communication and cultural barrier to accessing an equity of experience.
Your post offers an empathetic analysis of how disability intersects with other facets of identity, specifically language. The closing anecdote and reflection about the student who asked for an online tutorial resonated with my experience, where the ability to request adjustments or support is not necessarily equally accessed. In addition, language can itself be disabling through systemic failures and institutional bias.
Reflecting on your point that student experience and positionality is informed by the “complex interplay of identity, space and context” (Bayeck, 2022), I recall several examples of “invisible” (i.e., not captured in institutional data) intersectional discrimination affecting the academic experience of non-native English speakers. On BA Product and Industrial Design, we teach human-centred design methodology, which involves understanding the contexts and lived experiences of those potentially affected by or those intended to engage with the design. Qualitative research and engagement with external stakeholders – for example, through interviews, conversations, or collaboration – is central to our curriculum. Yet for many international students, particularly Asian students, linguistic barriers and the real fear or experience of public discrimination in London create substantial obstacles. The resulting discomfort is not just a personal barrier; it can compromise the depth and quality of design research, and in turn, the learning experience.
This dynamic resonates with Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of linguistic capital, whereby standardised English is privileged within academic and societal “markets,” granting confidence, mobility, and institutional legitimacy to those fluent in it, while marginalising those who are not. For students who experience hostility when speaking English in public, or who are uncertain about how to express themselves academically, this isn’t merely about fluency – it’s about legitimacy. Linguistic capital becomes a filter through which access, participation, and even belonging are unevenly distributed.
This injustice also manifests in institutional processes like EC (Extenuating Circumstances) claims. I’ve seen students submit doctors’ letters or bereavement evidence in Chinese, only to have their claims delayed or rejected outright. In one instance, a student shared that her EC was initially dismissed because her mother’s medical documentation, which verified a cancer diagnosis, was written in Chinese. In this emotional and vulnerable state, she was required to revisit the evidence unnecessarily, effectively reliving her trauma in order for it to be taken seriously. In contrast, evidence in English, or from English-speaking countries, is in my estimation, more likely to be accepted without interruption. These moments reveal how UK academic support mechanisms can discriminate when built without linguistic empathy. They also illustrate how institutional processes often confer greater legitimacy to English-language evidence, thereby reinforcing existing hierarchies of linguistic capital.
References
Bayeck, R.Y. (2022) ‘Positionality: The Interplay of Space, Context and Identity’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, pp. 1–9. DOI: 10.1177/16094069221114745.
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Edited by J.B. Thompson. Translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hi Jeff. Thanks very much for the detailed comment – and for the reference to Bordieu (1991) I have had a read of some of the chapters and the idea of ‘linguistic capital’ and the subordination of other languages by the hegemonic English resonates with my view of developing a critical literacy in the university space- this is something that I have incorporated into my reflective report – which deals with race, language and inclusivity at UAL.