In 2023, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 11% of graduate students in the United States had some form of disability; however, students with disabilities (SWD) in higher education have lower completion rates than non-disabled students (Guilbaud et al., 2021; Mowreader, 2024a). There have been questions about whether the disparity in graduation rates between students with and without disabilities meant that simply providing accommodations was insufficient to provide equal opportunities for graduate SWD (Deckoff-Jones & Duell, 2018; Dowrick et al., 2005). Research has also noted that higher education institutions have difficulty making what are considered to be time-consuming and costly accommodations for SWD (Lister et al., 2021). Previous research on faculty members working with SWD has focused mainly on undergraduate students and on students at brick-and-mortar institutions (Huss & Eastep, 2016; Pérez-Esteban et al., 2023; Phillips et al., 2012). As more graduate SWD move to online education due to the added flexibility of the online course format (Pérez-Esteban et al., 2023; Phillips et al., 2012; Verdinelli & Kutner, 2016), additional research on faculty members who work with online graduate SWD and accommodations in online higher education institutions is warranted.

Perez-Esteban et al. stated in a 2023 literature review that the majority of higher education instructors (57%) had a positive attitude towards SWD in the classroom. However, in other studies, faculty members reported more negative feelings of pity, awkwardness, and embarrassment for SWD (Aguirre & Duncan, 2013; Giroux et al., 2020). Negative faculty attitudes may begin with a lack of knowledge and training about SWD, possibly because society continues to portray persons with disabilities as objects of pity who have complex needs, which may be a drain on perceived scant resources (Goodley et al., 2019; Pérez-Esteban et al., 2023).

The higher education institutional environment continues to accept the dominant cultural consideration which holds ability to be the valued standard of student capacity (Brown & Leigh, 2020; Brown & Ramlackhan, 2021; Deckoff-Jones & Duell, 2018; Dowrick et al., 2005; Goodley et al., 2019; Koren & Evans-El, 2020; Olsen et al., 2020). Goodley et al. (2019) called disability a phenomenon which has been shaped by external factors including stigma, ableism, and prejudice (Adefila et al., 2020; Goodley et al., 2019; Grimes et al., 2020; Hall, 2019). Often, higher education institutions require students who are standardized, normative, and fully able-bodied, thus marginalizing and stigmatizing SWD who are unable to meet specific academic requirements without accommodation (Brown & Leigh, 2020; Brown & Ramlackhan, 2021; Koren & Evans-El, 2020; Olsen et al., 2020).

The higher education system is focused on deadlines (Lund et al., 2014). The most common college academic accommodation found in the literature review was time flexibility, whether in class attendance modifications (Terras et al., 2015; Wolanin & Steele, 2004; Yssel et al., 2016), for extensions to completing assignments (Giroux et al., 2020), or to extending testing time (Terras et al., 2015). When setting up a flexible time accommodation, the importance of communication between students and faculty is stressed by Lund et al. (2023) and Terras et al. (2015). However, the time pressure on SWD can, even with accommodations, be overwhelming and time flexibility might not be helpful, as illustrated by a student in Yssel et al.'s study: “If I don’t know the answer, putting on more time isn’t going to really help me” (2016, p. 388).

Graduate SWD may not receive appropriate support to complete their online degree programs because they have to deal with faculty members who are unwilling to provide support due to negative attitudes towards SWD. In addition, accommodations provided by the university may not be appropriate, faculty members may not be aware of specific accommodations needed by graduate students, or faculty may not have been trained in ways to support graduate SWD.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the attitudes of faculty members who work with online graduate SWD toward the appropriateness of accommodations, and their personal approach to providing or withholding support.

Method

This research used archival data from an online study conducted from April 2022-May 2022. The setting was a completely online, private, non-profit university in the United States. Data collection was conducted via Qualtrics email, and demographic information from the 130 respondents was collected.

The original study was done in response to a literature review that called for additional studies on faculty perceptions of working with SWD in the online setting and at the graduate level (Guilbaud et al., 2021; Hsiao et al., 2019; Hunt et al., 2014; Lehan et al., 2025; Pérez-Esteban et al., 2023; Phillips et al., 2012; Wynants & Dennis, 2017). The decision to use archival data for this study was made in order to gain a more in-depth understanding, and potentially re-interpretation, of the findings in ways that were different from the original study (Bloomberg, 2023; Heaton, 2004; Hinds et al., 2013), thus offering the prospect of finding new insights and generating new knowledge. Qualitative archival data content analysis can uncover powerful quotes that may be able to make significant impacts on those who are in charge of making systemic changes (Lund et al., 2023). Using archival data for a secondary analysis also gave me the opportunity to study a potentially sensitive topic without having direct contact between myself and the research participants (Bloomberg, 2023; Heng et al., 2018; Hinds et al., 2013; Lund et al., 2023). The topic of faculty attitudes of working with online graduate SWD can be a sensitive one for faculty members, students, and the larger higher education institutional environment (Wynants & Dennis, 2017; Yssel et al., 2016). I used the strategies of thick, rich descriptions from the data; thorough journaling and careful reflexivity; and audit trails to meet the criteria of credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability that define the concepts of rigor and trustworthiness in qualitative research (Bloomberg, 2023).

Critical disability theory (CDT) was used in the current study as the theoretical framework through which I viewed the social, political, and cultural environment surrounding the concept of disability (Goodley et al., 2019; Hall, 2019). I used CDT’s aim of exposing and analyzing faculty attitudes towards SWD in the first two research questions and used the goal of critical theory research, which requires transformation and empowerment for change, to discover answers to the final research question, which examined methods faculty members are using and the techniques they need to assist online graduate SWD. The categories which were found in the content analysis supported the conceptual framework of CDT by providing information that can be used to create a supportive environment for SWD in higher education.

Research Question 1: What are faculty members’ attitudes about working with online graduate students with disabilities?

Research Question 2: What are faculty members’ viewpoints on accommodations for online graduate students with disabilities?

Research Question 3: What are the methods faculty members are using to assist online graduate students with disabilities and what additional instructional methods do they need?

Demographics

At the time of the original survey, there were 607 faculty members at the university; 130 faculty members (81 part-time/49 full-time) completed the survey instrument for a 21.45% response rate (Lehan et al., 2025). It is important to note that the faculty members self-selected to participate in the initial research study, which may have biased their responses. They were currently working with an average of 2.13 (SD=1.78) students whom they knew had a disability (Lehan et al., 2025).

Data Analysis

The first six survey questions were demographic. Survey questions seven through 17 were examined manually to determine the placement of those questions into the three research questions using the framework of CDT. Because the archival survey questions were written in response to a different research framework and thus did not exactly match my research questions, I used different-colored sticky notes placed on a wall in order to gain a visual display of the survey questions as they related to my Research Questions. I used a descriptive approach to the coding process by reflecting on what each piece of data meant prior to placing that data into a specific category.

Results

Though I deliberately chose to move away from a completely negative focus in the research by using the CDT framework rather than one of the ableist theories, I really expected to find a strong set of negative attitudes on the part of the faculty members who responded to the original study. But the preliminary data analysis findings produced a distinct reaction of disappointment; I was prepared, even eager, to highlight ableist attitudes, stigma, and prejudice in the faculty, only to find that though there were some of those attitudes found in the survey answers, with a very small number of exceptions, the faculty members have good attitudes about working with SWD. Most of the negative statements that were found were directed towards the university and its policies.

While some faculty members had no problems with the idea of working with students with disabilities, others were ambivalent, and there were a small number who wanted nothing to do with SWD. Some faculty felt that there were plenty of resources for SWD, while others said that they did not know about resources at all. When it comes to instructor training on working with SWD, there were those who had had training before they came to the university and did not need more, others said that they did not want training at all, while some demanded extensive training. Faculty members in this study repeatedly stressed the need for fairness towards all students, with the implication that no one group of students should be getting special treatment (Rocco, 2000).

Positive Responses

Faculty attitudes towards working with their online graduate students with disabilities were generally positive. Positive attitudes were stated as casually as a simple “happy to help” while neutral responses came in the form of questions such as “what can I do” or statements such as “it’s the law.” For the most part, faculty members were very positive about teaching SWD as indicated by the following answer to the question of how they feel when they learn they will have a SWD in a course: “I get excited and happy to see the student feels confident to utilize our equitable services at the university!” While another instructor said, “If a student tells me that they have a disability, I do not make any arrangements other than what I would do for students who do not have disabilities.” These responses challenge the CDT theory of a prevailing attitude of ableism in higher education institutions, which suggests that online higher education faculty are less likely to have ableist attitudes towards graduate SWD.

Negative Responses

Negative attitudes towards SWD could still be very strong, as in this statement: “I think some students may be gaming the system.” Some potentially ableist statements included: “I treat all students the same” and “…it is good for the student to continue developing themselves despite their condition.” Other general negative responses were: “…sometimes I have wondered how they [SWD] expect to be able to complete the work or overall program;” “…when some students do not have the competencies to complete the research even with added time, it disturbs me that they are wasting time and monies,” and:

I do feel students should be better vetted for being able to complete the work. My concern is that students are running up great student loan debt that will never be repaid because many students are not able to complete their degrees.

Stigma

Some faculty members specifically mentioned stigma in their responses such as: “Stigma and the crudeness of the accommodation that is extra time is not really dismantling of barriers. In fact no meaningful accommodation is really made in the sense of actually mitigating the disability;” and “[there is] stigma around asking for accommodations especially at the graduate/doctoral level.” Other faculty members noted that there is “Stigma related to learning disabilities and mental health disorders,” and “…[the] stigma of applying for/having accommodations.”

Accommodations

When it came to the faculty’s attitudes towards providing accommodations, the prevalent academic culture of resistance and skepticism towards SWD belonging in higher education was upheld. The survey questions about accommodations for the SWD produced considerable negative responses, mostly due to the lack of any variety in the available accommodations as well as the perceived tendency of students to take advantage of the accommodations provided. “We are simply to follow the instructions of the office accommodation which is minimal in content and then try to wing it based on what students indicate,” and

I’m not in a position to grant accommodation and have no resources available. The weekly meetings are more or less done anyway except the students most in need of accommodation often don’t have the mental resources to engage consistently.

Negative responses specifically to time accommodations included: “I do feel that [the university] grants this very liberally;” “While extra time is the most common accommodation, I feel uninformed of other solutions;” “I have no problem with students needing an accommodation. But besides having extend [sic] time to complete work it is not always clear what student needs;” “…I do believe some students use minor issues that a lot of people suffer from to gain more time when it is not truly needed;” and “Typically you only translate disability into an accommodation of extra time. In many cases that does not accommodate the disability just extends the agony.” Other negative responses mentioned the additional workload that extra time may require from faculty: “A deadline is a deadline. This creates more work for faculty members;” “Good for the students, but it adds extra loads to the faculty;” and “…for the part-time faculty, it asks for additional course time without pay.” One faculty member provided the following commentary on the subject of accommodations:

I do not like the word “accommodation” at all. Accommodation infers the student is getting “special” or “preferential treatment.” Whereas the student is receiving equitable services. I believe education needs to engage in a paradigm shift because language matters. I work with many students who are in the symbolic “closet” because they do not want a stigma attached to them. From an inclusive lens or framework, we need to evolve from “accommodation” to “equitable services.” With all of that said, I am a bit [sic] advocate for students’ receiving equitable services during their educational tenure.

University

Supporting online graduate SWD requires cooperation and collaboration from students, faculty, and the higher education institution. Anderson et al. noted students must be assessed and assisted on an individual basis (2024), and a faculty member’s response to a survey question agreed, stating that, “…more support systems are needed for students. We need reading specialists to help students with comprehension issues as well as writing coaches. The need for more support services is typical in institutions who admit underprepared students.”

Faculty members had multiple suggestions for the university: “Make its commitment to inclusion more visible through advertisement and recognition of students and staff – hire additional instructors and staff with disabilities;” “We must incorporate technologies that will assist all students no matter their disability. We should examine best practices in the industry and consider any gaps we may have in our capabilities;” “We can appreciate the extra efforts it takes students to complete coursework. We can also talk about universal design;” and “By being flexible in how we manage student learning. Not all students will benefit fully from how our courses are designed. The more alternatives we can provide to students, the better we can meet their learning needs.” Qualitative archival data content analysis can uncover powerful quotes which may be able to make significant impacts on those who are in charge of making systemic changes (Lund et al., 2023), such as this comment on what a faculty member felt was needed to assist the online graduate SWD:

Understanding the different kinds of learning challenges and the tools available is a start. Beyond that, returning frequently to that training with refreshers on services and support. Finally, having someone to reach out when there are outstanding or new compounding issues. Conditions for students change and we need to be agile in our ability to respond to those changes.

Discussion

The findings from this study increase the amount of research on online graduate SWD, giving a fuller picture of faculty members’ attitudes towards working with SWD and providing accommodations for those graduate students. I did not expect to discover the number of negative comments regarding SWD and accommodations such as “When students do not show signs of investment, the accommodations only serve to drag out the course and delay the student’s progress;” “I’m not in a position to grant accommodation and have no resources available…the students most in need of accommodation often don’t have the mental resources to engage consistently;” and “the crudeness of the accommodation that is extra time is not really dismantling of barriers. In fact no meaningful accommodation is really made in the sense of actually mitigating the disability.” One faculty member stated, “We are simply to follow the instructions of the office of accommodation which is minimal in content and then try to wing it based on what students indicate,” while another instructor commented,

I would like to know what we are required by law to provide and what we provide in terms of goodwill. I would also like to know what the expectations are of faculty to provide support for accommodations that require significantly more effort on the part of the faculty.

These findings suggest that while faculty members do not mind working with online graduate SWD, when it comes to providing the accommodations that SWD require to succeed in their degree programs, the faculty attitudes towards those accommodations reflect the stigma and ableism currently prevalent in higher education (Grimes et al., 2020) as was shown in this comment, “The University is doing more than enough to help such persons.” Since graduate SWD often depend on course accommodations (Aguirre & Duncan, 2013; Druckman et al., 2021; Hsiao et al., 2019; Lefler et al., 2023; Mowreader, 2024b) additional evidence of negative faculty attitudes towards those accommodations means that there is a need to improve the training on accommodations and SWD which faculty members receive both during their onboarding experience and in their continuing education. Faculty responded to the original survey by asking for additional training, making comments such as, “[I] would personally love additional training about how to be more supportive when working with students with disabilities;” “I’d like more training in terms of technology;” and “[we need] at least some kind of module in initial training. Or in yearly mandatory training.” This additional training could lead to improvements in teaching practices, which would facilitate better conditions for higher academic performance and increase program completion rates for graduate SWD (Guilbaud et al., 2021; Lehan et al., 2025; Lomellini et al., 2022; Lorenzo-Lledó et al., 2020; Mowreader, 2024b; Pérez-Esteban et al., 2023; Phillips et al., 2012).

Increased workloads with online SWD do not always mean adequate compensation and evaluation for faculty members (Hsiao et al., 2019; Hunt et al., 2014; Huss & Eastep, 2016). Moreover, faculty members could not see spending time or money in adapting course materials (Huss & Eastep, 2016), especially if they had never had a student with disabilities in their courses (Phillips et al., 2012). Research by Wolanin & Steele (2004) found that reasonable accommodations do not have to cause a financial burden; however, faculty members in this study consistently commented on the loss of income they experience when they have a SWD: “I have found that often a student with a disability tend to need more of my time for which I am not compensated.;” and “Sometimes they have taken more of my time than regular students to work with them, for no additional compensation to me.” These findings should be considered by online institutions when planning instructor compensation. Faculty who teach graduate SWD should be fully compensated for the additional time required for those students’ accommodations, as shown in this comment: “it [the university] should provide compensation to adjunct/part-time faculty as they are only compensated for the number of weeks the course was originally supposed to take.” Other faculty members mentioned that they would prefer not to work with SWD and suggested “…assign a one-on-one faculty mentor for the student;” “Assigning students who need accommodations to full-time faculty who have a greater capacity to serve;” and “Perhaps, develop a pool of faculty who could be trained in supporting students with accommodations (similar to ESE teachers in Education) and be able to assign those students to those professors.”

Implications

Lopez and Grey stated that “in the modern era, where education increasingly welcomes nontraditional students, professors must adapt their teaching styles to accommodate students who may not fit the cookie-cutter model” (2025, p. 17) and a faculty member agreed by saying, “I believe that we must provide resources and the extra time needed to support the student’s unique learning need (s)…” Other responses included “Do we have people trained to understand what learning strategies work for people with various disabilities?” and “The only communication about accommodations comes in an email with explicit dates. This presents a barrier to flexibility. Faculty ignorance is a barrier to students. Student ignorance regarding disability services is a barrier.” In addition, one faculty member stated that barriers faced by students with disabilities “maps back to need for more resources for the support staff.” While another offered both critique and suggestion in their comment:

Lack of information from the advisers. Some students tell me of their issues, and say that they have discussed these with the adviser. Yet the adviser did not tell them of the services of the disabilities offices. Maybe we need to bypass this step and give all students this information during the onboarding phase/and we can train advisers better in spotting needs for disabilities services in students.

These findings demonstrate that there is a definite need for coordination of efforts by all participants in the online higher education environment to provide graduate SWD with the most effective educational experience as faculty members stated, “disability services could ask students who apply for the accommodation to indicate what kinds of things help them and shar [sic] that with the faculty;” “If short training videos are available, deans could periodically remind faculty to view these;” and “Ensur [e] there is a good line of communications between students, advisors, and their faculty.”

Limitations

The use of archival data can often mean that there will be an inability to apply research findings to a larger population (Bloomberg, 2023). Data collection for the original study was done in a specific timeframe and in a specific higher education institution, which can limit its ability for application to the present day and its application to other higher education institutions. Potential biases of the original researchers and myself are limitations that also must be considered when examining archival data. The original researchers listed their limitations as being their status as disabled faculty members and a graduate SWD, as well as being faculty members and a student at the university where the study was conducted. I have several biases that might have affected this study’s results, including the fact that I was a student at the university at the time when the original study was conducted. As a SWD, I have had both positive and negative experiences with faculty members in the course of my studies, both at the university where I received my master’s degree and at the university that was the site of the original study. I was also one of the original researchers from the archival study. As a member of the original research team, I already had access to the archival dataset. Because this study used archival data, there was no risk to the original study participants. This study received approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board prior to beginning the data analysis.

Conclusion

I used the CDT aim of exposing and analyzing faculty attitudes towards students with disabilities and found that faculty attitudes towards working with SWD were generally positive. However, when it came to faculty attitudes towards providing accommodations to SWD, the findings from the literature review were corroborated: the academic culture is one of resistance and skepticism towards SWD belonging in higher education. Current CDT research also requires a goal of critiquing and challenging, transforming and empowering for change. I found that the faculty attitudes towards the university’s level of support for SWD were mixed, but with a definite belief there was more that the institution should be doing to support both SWD and the faculty working with them. However, I also discovered faculty members who were transforming the way they interacted with their SWD and who were empowering change within the university with responses which included “Better and more varied means of communication and feedback;” “We must incorporate technologies that will assist all students no matter their disability. We should examine best practices in the industry and consider any gaps we may have in our capabilities;” “We can appreciate the extra efforts it takes students to complete coursework. We can also talk about universal design;” and

I believe the best thing we can do is provide accommodations cheerfully, but don’t go beyond the accommodations in the letter. If a faculty member feels bias or animosity, they can hopefully seek training to learn that providing accommodations is the law, and that it is natural, and that we all need accommodations in some area of life. The idea that higher education is not for everyone is a little outdated.

Finally, CDT research requires ideas for transformation and empowerment for change. Online universities could be an excellent option for graduate SWD, but only if the institution incorporates professional development not only for its faculty members but also for staff and administrative personnel (Lopez & Grey, 2025). These trainings should include, but not be limited to, information on disability awareness, inclusive teaching methods, accommodations, legal frameworks, and campus resources. In their responses to the research question about how to support online graduate SWD, faculty members consistently asked for more professional development. Faculty also particularly wanted information about the resources which are, or should be, available for both faculty and their graduate SWD. As a faculty respondent said, “I would like a training that explains the support available through the university, what the expectations are of faculty, and some best practices and strategies for us to use in the more common scenarios.”

The higher education environment often requires students who are standardized, normative, and fully able-bodied. But it does not have to. With the knowledge of what faculty members need to support their online graduate SWD and with the backing of its administration and staff, an online university can be a haven for those students.