Talking about Students with Disabilities. Results from a European Comparative Discourse Analysis

Disability has transcended national boundaries and is now shaped by global discourses (Goodley, 2011). Consequently, inclusive higher education practices are increasingly viewed through a global rather than purely local lens (OECD, 2003). While political attention to disability in higher education gained momentum after the UN CRPD, academic interest has only emerged recently. Despite this, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the conceptualization of disability and its linguistic and cultural construction across Europe. Initiatives like the Bologna process (Crosier & Parveva, 2013) and the European Disability Strategy (European Commission, 2010) emphasize the need for comparative research on disability within higher education. Yet, comprehensive European comparative studies remain scarce (Biermann & Powell, 2016; Powell, 2014), highlighting the necessity for research on the implementation of inclusive practices.

This presentation adopts a comparative European perspective and incorporates insights from disability studies (Berger, 2013; Waldschmidt, 2006, 2017), viewing disability as a socially and culturally constructed phenomenon rather than a fixed ontology. It employs discourse analysis, drawing on Foucault's theories of power, knowledge, and subjectivity (1982, 1997), alongside Butler's concepts of performativity and iterability (1993, 1997), to analyze 51 interviews with university employees across five European universities (Leipzig, Bologna, Krakau, Gothenburg and Aarhus). The aim is to explore how students with disabilities are discussed, and to identify the power dynamics and norms shaping these discourses.

Findings indicate that discussions around students with disabilities fluctuate between regulatory norms and individual recognition. Despite political efforts, the notion of the "normal" student remains centered on non-disabled standards, perpetuating distinctions between ability and disability. Disability continues to be framed as a deviation from desirable normality, influenced by entrenched medical and psychological paradigms. Consequently, legal provisions alone are insufficient for true inclusion; a shift towards viewing disability as part of normality is necessary.