Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Implementing disability policy in teaching and ...

Electronic data

  • Wray and Houghton 2018

    Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Teaching in Higher Education on 28/6/2018, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2018.1491838

    Accepted author manuscript, 407 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Implementing disability policy in teaching and learning contexts: shop floor constructivism or street level bureaucracy?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Implementing disability policy in teaching and learning contexts : shop floor constructivism or street level bureaucracy? / Wray, Mike; Houghton, Ann-Marie.

In: Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 24, No. 4, 19.05.2019, p. 510-526.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{e79fd14681894879abdded61058c0bbd,
title = "Implementing disability policy in teaching and learning contexts: shop floor constructivism or street level bureaucracy?",
abstract = "Since 1995 the UK higher education sector has been required to implement national disability related legislation. This paper reports on a study which explored the role that policies play ininfluencing how staff support disabled students. In particular the extent to which staff in HE behave in similar ways to those described as street level bureaucrats by (Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation). Semi-structured interviews undertaken with 34 staff in the case study university provided the substantive data. Although there was little evidence to show that policy had a direct influence on practice, it was clear that staff made considerable efforts to support disabled learners and these efforts were based on values associated with providing an equitable experience for all students. Additionally, staff were able to exercise discretion in the way they responded to disabledstudents and constructed responses to policies without significant influence from institutional managers, national legislation or broader policy discourse.",
keywords = "Inclusion, implementation, Disabled Students, Policy, street level bureaucracy",
author = "Mike Wray and Ann-Marie Houghton",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Teaching in Higher Education on 28/6/2018, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2018.1491838",
year = "2019",
month = may,
day = "19",
doi = "10.1080/13562517.2018.1491838",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "510--526",
journal = "Teaching in Higher Education",
issn = "1356-2517",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementing disability policy in teaching and learning contexts

T2 - shop floor constructivism or street level bureaucracy?

AU - Wray, Mike

AU - Houghton, Ann-Marie

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Teaching in Higher Education on 28/6/2018, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2018.1491838

PY - 2019/5/19

Y1 - 2019/5/19

N2 - Since 1995 the UK higher education sector has been required to implement national disability related legislation. This paper reports on a study which explored the role that policies play ininfluencing how staff support disabled students. In particular the extent to which staff in HE behave in similar ways to those described as street level bureaucrats by (Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation). Semi-structured interviews undertaken with 34 staff in the case study university provided the substantive data. Although there was little evidence to show that policy had a direct influence on practice, it was clear that staff made considerable efforts to support disabled learners and these efforts were based on values associated with providing an equitable experience for all students. Additionally, staff were able to exercise discretion in the way they responded to disabledstudents and constructed responses to policies without significant influence from institutional managers, national legislation or broader policy discourse.

AB - Since 1995 the UK higher education sector has been required to implement national disability related legislation. This paper reports on a study which explored the role that policies play ininfluencing how staff support disabled students. In particular the extent to which staff in HE behave in similar ways to those described as street level bureaucrats by (Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation). Semi-structured interviews undertaken with 34 staff in the case study university provided the substantive data. Although there was little evidence to show that policy had a direct influence on practice, it was clear that staff made considerable efforts to support disabled learners and these efforts were based on values associated with providing an equitable experience for all students. Additionally, staff were able to exercise discretion in the way they responded to disabledstudents and constructed responses to policies without significant influence from institutional managers, national legislation or broader policy discourse.

KW - Inclusion

KW - implementation

KW - Disabled Students

KW - Policy

KW - street level bureaucracy

U2 - 10.1080/13562517.2018.1491838

DO - 10.1080/13562517.2018.1491838

M3 - Journal article

VL - 24

SP - 510

EP - 526

JO - Teaching in Higher Education

JF - Teaching in Higher Education

SN - 1356-2517

IS - 4

ER -