Keywords

Both Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 Agenda (SDG) 4 and Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) underline meaningful and sustainable inclusive educational opportunities in various contexts. This focus extends to higher education which serves as a crucial gateway for people with disabilities, offering pathways to further education and employment (de Beco, 2019, p. 91). Scholars emphasize the  term “reasonable accommodation” to eliminate the risk of inclusive education stopping after the formal or traditional schooling process and ensure the continuation of inclusivity throughout postsecondary educational settings (de Beco, 2019). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also  highlights the importance of equal accessibility to higher education for all (Kayess, 2019, p. 123). Despite ongoing global efforts, higher education still requires more focus on disability-inclusive international development, as it remains limited and not fully accessible for individuals with disabilities worldwide (Covas & de Luna, 2019).

 To address and understand the multifaceted nature of this challenge, the Republic of Türkiye (hereafter Türkiye) was chosen as the case study. Türkiye is a state party to these international agendas and operates under a centralized top-down system, meaning that all stakeholders must adhere to policies and regulations regardless of their position, geographic location, or status within the community. Thus, this chapter aims to deconstruct the Turkish social system with emphasis on education and employment first and show an example of how the current system is disrupted to ensure the proper application of international agendas that Türkiye is officially and legally a part of. This chapter is arranged into four sections, including (a) background on education and employment in the Turkish legal and social system to understand the foundation of current systems that is a gateway or product of higher education for individuals with disabilities; (b) recent perspectives on inclusive, accessible, and nondiscriminatory higher education, and an analysis of the current state of the Turkish higher education system in relation to individuals with disabilities; (c) a case study of Aksaray University, illustrating how the provision of disability support services can disrupt and improve the system.

To address the multifaceted nature of the aforementioned challenge, the authors adopt an eclectic approach. First they deconstruct the inclusive postsecondary education within the framework of a wicked problem, which provides a better understanding of the critical issues (for a detailed explanation of the wicked problem, please see Rittel & Weber, 1973; Zhao et al., 2019). Next, the authors employ disability studies in education as a conceptual approach to explore why and how these issues arise (Bacon & Baglieri, 2020). It is important to note that both authors have firsthand multicultural disability experiences, positioning them closer to a reconceptualist understanding of disability (Connor & Olander, n.d.).

1 Introduction

According to the latest statistics from the Turkish Statistical Institute (Turk Stat), in 2023, the country’s population has surpassed 85 million, solidifying its status as one of the most populous nations in the region. Numbers show that the proportion of the working age group (15–64) was 67.7% in 2020, while the proportion of the children age group (0–14) was 22.8%, and the proportion of the older population (over 65) was 9.5%. On the other hand, the average age of the overall Turkish population is 33.5 years old. This data suggests that Türkiye has a relatively young population, and an important portion of the Turkish population is still of school age.

According to Turk Stat’s most recent data, the population of people with disabilities in Türkiye constitutes a sizable portion of the overall demographic landscape. Even though the number of people with a disability is uncertain due to a lack of a recent and consistent data collection, there are few studies regarding the population with a disability in Türkiye. In a statistical study carried out by the Prime Ministry Administration for People with Disabilities in 2002, it was found that the percentage of people with disabilities in Türkiye, including those with chronic diseases, is 12.29% (of the total population), totaling 8,431,937 individuals. However, a different perspective emerged from the 2011 Population and Housing Survey in Turkey, indicating that the percentage of the population with at least one disability, such as in seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, climbing stairs, holding or lifting something, learning, doing simple calculations, remembering, and concentrating compared to peers (aged three or older) is 6.9%, equivalent to 4,876,000 people. The breakdown shows that the disability rate is 5.9% among men and 7.9% among women. It is also worth noting that the 2011 survey did not consider persons with multiple impairments as a separate category (Arun, 2014; Turkish Statistical Institute, 2015).

The term “disability” encompasses a range of conditions, including physical, sensory, intellectual, and developmental disabilities. Turk Stat categorizes individuals based on the type and severity of their disabilities; however, it is difficult to access accurate data regarding the exact number of people with a disability and types of disability in Türkiye. Since the World Health Organization (WHO) anticipates the disability rate to be around 16% of the population, it can be speculated that there are around 14 million people with a disability in Türkiye. Understanding the educational and employment status of individuals with disabilities is essential for gauging societal inclusivity. Therefore, a general overview of the education and employment of individuals with a disability in Türkiye is provided below.

2 Background

2.1 Education System for Students with Disabilities as a Gateway to Higher Education

Legal context: Following the international agenda, the right to education for everyone was first recognized as a basic human right in the UDHR in 1948 (Raja & Giannoumis, 2019; Yazicioglu, 2020). This was further emphasized through inclusion practices in the CRPD and SDGs, which were subsequently incorporated into the National Constitution of Türkiye. Article 10 guarantees equal rights and freedom for all citizens, strongly opposing discrimination based on socially constructed or inherent characteristics such as language, race, color, gender, political thought, philosophical belief, religion, sect, and disability. Article 42 protects the educational and training rights of all citizens. The constitution also includes measures to prevent exclusionary practices and privileges granted to unintended persons or groups not within vulnerable populations. State and administrative organs work together to uphold the principle of equality as the rule of law.

Although several laws and regulations have emphasized the needs of people with disabilities since the early years of the establishment of the republic, a turning point in the legal system was the takeover of the management of special education services by the Ministry of National Education in 1950 from the Ministry of Health and Social Aid (Ozturk, 2019). Furthermore, the foundations of the current special education system were established with the legislation titled “Children with Special Education Needs Law No. 2916” in 1983. While this law was protecting the education rights of students with disabilities between 4 and 18 years old, the “Statutory Decree on Special Education Services No. 573” in 1997 furthered the educational rights for mainstream and vocational education for students with disabilities and detailed the process with the addition of concepts including inclusion, early intervention, individualized education programs, and parent involvement in educational processes.

The second major turning point in Turkish laws and regulations was the enactment of the “Regulation on Special Education Services” in 2000, with revisions in 2004 and a major reorganization in 2006 (Cavkaytar et al., 2017; Ozturk, 2019). The current version with detailed definitions and implementation processes was established in 2012. Concurrently, the operations and activities of private rehabilitation centers were regulated by the “Turkish Disability Act No. 5378” in 2005 and the “Private Educational Institutions Act No. 5580” in 2007 (Cavkaytar et al., 2017; Ozturk, 2019). These legislative revisions underscore the importance of ensuring equal opportunities in lifelong education for individuals with disabilities while prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination. They protect fundamental rights and freedoms, strengthen respect for inherent dignity and implement preventive measures against disability-based discrimination. This action might be recognized as the first step toward changing the understanding of disability as an intersectional and critical social construct and not merely a health issue that should be fixed. These legislations and regulations advocate for the involvement of multiple state parties within the centralized national system and stakeholders to ensure the best possible approach is followed.

Civic applications and social practices context: In the last seventeen years that statistics are available for formal schooling, there has been a major improvement regarding special education and students with disabilities in Türkiye. Table 1 gives the official numbers for students, schools, and teachers for both special and mainstream education populations within the formal schooling system for the 2022/3 and 2006/7 academic years (Ministry of National Education, n.d.). The analysis of Table 1 data shows that although students receiving special education in the formal schooling system rapidly increased in seventeen years with a 1455.54% rate and their representation within the mainstream student population increased to 2.55%, the growth in the number of teachers is still insufficient to meet the rapid increase in students with disabilities receiving special education. This suggests that the education system may be unable to adequately respond to the needs of this population in terms of recognition, diagnosis, accommodation, and support services while also ensuring the least restrictive environment and inclusive practices.

Table 1 Distribution of special and mainstream education population
Full size table

Based on the data from the Turkey Disability Survey (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2002); 66.09% of individuals with intellectual disabilities, 53.01% of individuals with speech disorders, 36.9% of individuals with deafness or hard of hearing, 34.9% of individuals with blindness or vision impairment, and 29.5% of people with physical disabilities are reported as illiterate. Additionally, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute (2022a, 2022b), the professions of special education teaching, teaching for individuals with intellectual disabilities, teaching for individuals with deafness or hard of hearing, and teaching for individuals with blindness or vision impairment are four professions among the top ten professions that received high employment in 2021. However, combined with the information in Table 1, this increase is still far from meeting the rapid increase of students with disabilities receiving special education in formal schooling. The latest official statistics tailored to individuals with disabilities that are available via the Turkish Statistical Institute are the Turkish Disability Survey (2002), the Problems and Expectations of People with Disabilities Survey (2010), and the Population and Household Survey (2011). These surveys are all older than a decade, which suggests the requirement of recent data that is either collected with similar methods or combined with data-merging or data-fusing methods that would provide more detailed information on the population with disabilities in Türkiye.

The mismatch between the steep increase in students with disabilities within the education system and the educational support, services, and accommodations provided is highlighted by several scholars (Girli & Atasoy, 2012; Göl, 2014; Gül & Vuran, 2015; Güleryüz, 2014; Sazak-Pinar & Güner-Yildiz, 2013). Research suggests the dissatisfaction of students with disabilities with the provided materials, supports, and services, especially with STEM classes such as math (Bayram et al., 2015) and physics (Ünlü et al., 2010), and overall unhappiness with the overall educational experiences (Işlek, 2017). Furthermore, various researchers have documented far more negative experiences of students with disabilities in mainstream schools, including incidents of physical abuse (Girli & Atasoy, 2012; Güleryüz, 2014; Yekta, 2010).

Multiple studies also reflected the knowledge of and perspectives toward the inclusion construct of educators in mainstream classrooms that highlight multiple shortcomings, including limited knowledge on inclusion in general (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019; Deniz & Çoban, 2019; Söğüt & Deniz, 2018) and specific knowledge such as Individualized Education Plan (IEP) preparation (Karakiş, 2023; Söğüt & Deniz, 2018), lack of communication with students with disabilities (Öztürk et al., 2024), lack of materials and types of equipment (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019; Deniz & Çoban, 2019), family-related obstacles (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019), limited time (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019; Karakiş, 2023), physical and behavioral characteristics of students with disabilities (Öztürk et al., 2024); classroom size and inability for physical arrangements (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019; Karakiş, 2023; Öztürk et al., 2024; Üçler et al., 2021), curriculum intensity and absence of knowledge on organization of teaching processes (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019; Üçler et al., 2021), workload (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019; Öztürk et al., 2024), absence of guidance counselors (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019), and lack of support education classrooms (Batmaz & Çermik, 2019), lack of training on general inclusive practices, measurement and evaluation, and instructional adaptations (Ceyhan & Alici, 2023; Girgin, 2021; Öztürk et al., 2024; Karakiş, 2023; Üçler et al., 2021).

Research also suggests that although some teachers preserve positive attitudes towards inclusion (Çankaya, 2010; Çankaya, & Korkmaz, 2012; Kaya, 2016), more teachers have negative attitudes towards inclusion (Demir & Acar, 2011; Engin et al., 2014; Gündüz, 2015; Ilk, 2014; Sadioğlu et al., 2012, 2013; Turk, 2011; Yatgin et al., 2015). Even some teachers expressed unwillingness to teach students with disabilities (Sanir, 2009) and consider them a burden due to their disability (Soyyiğit, 2013) and the perpetrators of the academic failure of their peers without disabilities (Gündüz, 2015; Ilk, 2014; Sadioğlu et al., 2013). Teachers feel that their desires are not taken into consideration (Saraç & Colak, 2012), and students with disabilities should be educated in segregated schools (Deniz & Çoban, 2019). Finally, Söğüt and Deniz (2018) highlighted that all concerns are valid in both the rural and urban schools, albeit the situation is much more concerning in the schools in the rural part of Türkiye.

Other research focused on parents of school-age children with disabilities to understand inclusion in the Turkish education system. Participant parents in various studies underlined the absence of special education services (Yazcayir & Gürgür, 2021). Their psychological experiences often included anxiety, avoidance, guilt, burnout, self-neglect, and child-centered life (Tümlü & Akdoğan, 2022),  likely exacerbated by concerns regarding the education of their children with disabilities (Melekoğlu, 2014). Although some research suggests parents are content with inclusive practices but expect better educational provisions such as social development (Yigen, 2008), parents cited that better communication and reciprocal information-sharing with teachers with better governmental support on family inclusion (Içyüz, 2016). Consequently, the current atmosphere and context on educational inclusion suggest snowballing unmet needs of various stakeholders and a lack of support, services, and accommodations that are accessible and sustainable within the system. Therefore, a comprehensive revision of the system, both horizontally and vertically, is required to better fulfill the needs of stakeholders to approach and adopt a more inclusive approach for everyone.

2.2 Employment System for Students with Disabilities as a Product of Higher Education

Legal context: According to the December 2021 data of the Turkish Statistical Institute (2022a, 2022b), the general labor force participation rate in Türkiye is 71.7% for men, 34.5% for women, and 52.9% in total. Conversely, accessing recent and accurate data regarding people with a disability in Türkiye is challenging. Nevertheless, a comprehensive study based on administrative records was conducted with the European Union member states, that is the Population and Housing Survey in 2011. According to the data, the labor force participation rate of the population with at least one disability is 35.4% for men and 12.5% for women; in total, it is 22.1% in Türkiye (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2011). The remarkable difference can be seen when this population is compared to the general population participating in the labor force, which is 71.7% for men and 34.5% for women; in total, it is 52.9% in Türkiye (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2011). Another striking point from the statistics is the gender inequality toward women for both citizens with and without disabilities, with a wider gap for women with disabilities.

Since Türkiye adopted the European tradition of advancing the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the workforce, mandatory employment quotas in labor markets were introduced (Altan, 1999). According to this mandate, a minimum of 3% of the workforce should comprise individuals with disabilities in private-sector businesses with over 50 employees, whereas the minimum employment requirement is set at 4% for contract workers in the public sector (2003, Article 30). Similarly, public institutions are mandated to ensure that at least 3% of their civil servants are individuals with disabilities (Yılmaz, 2020). Implementation of this policy enhanced the opportunities for individuals with disabilities to join the workforce. Within a decade, the number of employed people with a disability surpassed 19,000 in 1982. However, the results still were not at the desired level. Therefore, starting from 2005, new measurements were introduced. One of the landmarks is introducing the 5738 Law on Disabled People in 2005. Article 14 of the law explicitly prohibits all forms of discrimination in the labor market based on disability. Furthermore, the law (2005, Article 122) stipulates imprisonment (ranging from one to three years) for those who obstruct the hiring of individuals due to hateful treatment of differences, including disability.

The Turkish Disability Act (2005, Article 14) places the onus on the state to offer vocational training, rehabilitation services, and support for individuals with disabilities in establishing their own businesses. Specifically, the Turkish Employment Agency (Türkiye Iş Kurumu [IŞKUR]) is tasked with identifying suitable candidates for job openings and providing job training. IŞKUR is also authorized to impose fines if a company fails to adhere to the minimum employment requirement. These fines contribute to a special public fund, which is allocated to nonprofit organizations (NGOs). The NGOs use these funds to provide project grants aimed at enhancing the employability of individuals with disabilities (Article 30). Furthermore, the same law (Article 14) assigns the responsibility for providing reasonable accommodations in workplaces to relevant public institutions and employers. In addition, the purchase of assistive technologies, including software, is exempt from both value-added (Article 3) and customs taxes (Article 12).

On the other hand, in the 2000s, there was a push for a comprehensive analysis of jobs and occupations, aiming to designate suitable job types for specific disabilities. However, this project was misguided as it relied on the medical model of disability, assuming that individuals with disabilities could only perform certain jobs based on their physical, mental, and/or intellectual differences. This discriminatory stance was codified in the 2005 Turkish Disability Act. In 2014, a new article was introduced, granting individuals with disabilities the freedom to choose their own occupation without restrictions, replacing the article on job and occupation analysis. Finally, the Turkish Disability Act (2005, Article 14) officially recognized sheltered workshops. Defined as specially designated state-supported workplaces that provide occupational rehabilitation and employment for individuals with disabilities, these workshops began operation primarily after the 2013 bylaw and predominantly cater to individuals with cognitive disabilities, including intellectual disabilities and mental health disorders.

Despite the improvement in legislation over time, the unemployment rate of individuals with disabilities remains higher than the general population (Metin et al., 2011). Notably, more than one-third of individuals with a disability were illiterate, whereas the overall illiteracy rate was around 10%. These statistics show that citizens with disabilities face significant disparity and challenges to joining the workforce. This situation suggests a revision within the system to eliminate systemic oppression and overall discrimination, while the first step might be to reconceptualize the laws and regulations from a more reconstructive approach than the understanding of the medical model of disability. This root change might have a positive effect on the implementation of the legal procedures in societal systems by reducing the bias toward individuals with disabilities to access, join, and maintain their work and employment.

Civic applications and social practices context: A survey conducted in 2011 by the Ministry of Family and Social Policies (Metin et al., 2011) on private-sector employees and managers to gauge employers’ perspectives on working with individuals with disabilities revealed that small-scale firms were less compliant with the regulations and the overall rate of employment was below the legally mandated quota, although many of the enterprises did hire individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the 2011 survey highlighted a correlation between educational attainment and the sectoral distribution of employment (Metin et al., 2011). Almost half of workers with disabilities completed primary school, followed by 45% with a secondary school diploma, and some 7% with a university diploma. Due to the overall low educational attainment among individuals with disabilities, they were concentrated in junior/entrance occupations (35.5%) and clerical support work (31.3%). Only 7.9% of individuals with disabilities were employed in skilled professional work (Metin et al., 2011). The survey also revealed that most employers (71%) were aware of their legal obligation regarding the minimum employment requirement (Metin et al., 2011). Larger enterprises demonstrated a higher awareness of legislation on the employment of individuals with disabilities and employers’ legal obligations. Most employers (71%) cited the legal obligation as their main reason for employing individuals with disabilities, while 22% mentioned a sense of social responsibility. This suggests that removing the quota may significantly limit the employment of individuals with disabilities. Only 7% of employers reported employing individuals with disabilities because they were suited for a particular job. Half of the employers who did not employ individuals with disabilities stated they were unable to find a qualified person with a disability suitable for the job and/or sector.

The survey results indicated that employer attitudes toward hiring varied according to the type of disability. The majority of employers expressed a preference for employing people with orthopedic disabilities (40.9%). The least preferred groups were people with cognitive disabilities, including intellectual disabilities (4%) and those with mental health disorders (3.8%) (Metin et al., 2011). Given the historical context of extra-legal exclusion, the educational attainment level of individuals with disabilities in Türkiye remains notably lower than that of the general population. All interviewees highlighted that the low educational attainment of individuals with disabilities poses a significant obstacle to their employment. Those specializing in job-matching services for individuals with disabilities noted that university graduates tend to secure jobs more easily than primary and secondary school graduates, a pattern that mirrors the general population (Metin et al., 2011). However, interviewees also pointed out that educational qualifications do not shield individuals with disabilities from discrimination. When asked about the impact of discriminatory attitudes from employers and human resources personnel toward disabled university graduates, most respondents affirmed that such discrimination exists by offering only low-skilled jobs. In addition, it is stated that job training designed to increase skills that are truly marketable would increase the employability of adults with disabilities. Numerous other interviewees shared a high level of awareness regarding the exclusionary impact of the ableist social environment, extending to cities, transportation, housing, and workplaces. One form of discrimination highlighted in the interviews was the pseudo-employment of individuals with disabilities, where employers, in informal agreements, register individuals with disabilities as employees solely for social security coverage without actual employment. These discriminatory strategies, aiming to avoid fines for non-compliance, were criticized by interviewees, who pointed out that such agreements often serve the purposes of both parties, with some individuals with disabilities seeking them out to benefit from full social security coverage without actually working (Metin et al., 2011).

As highlighted previously, one of the major deficiencies in the implementation of the employment quota in the Turkish context lies within its definition of the target group of employers—specifically, private enterprises hiring more than 50 employees. It is worth noting that industrial enterprises employing fewer than 50 workers constitute approximately 98% of all industrial enterprises in the Turkish economy (Bayülken, 2017) and contribute to 45% of industrial employment. Consequently, the target group’s definition of the employment quota restricts its broader applicability in an economy dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises. On the other hand, despite Turkey having a robust legal framework safeguarding individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination, there are still discriminatory laws that, in practice, hinder their entry into specific professions or positions. For instance, the Judges and Prosecutors Law still portrays disability as a disqualifying condition for becoming a judge or prosecutor (Ataman et al., 2023).

In summary, according to the Turkey Disability Survey 2002, 78.29% of individuals with disabilities over 15 years old are not in the labor force. The employment rate is 25.61% in urban areas and 17.76% in rural areas. Only 6.71% of women having disabilities are working. The employment rate of persons with disabilities over age 12 is 22.19% (Metin et al., 2011), and 52.45% of individuals with disabilities are not included in any social security system (Firat, 2010). In addition, the research revealed that hidden disabilities, including mental health or emotional disorders, and cognitive disabilities, including intellectual and developmental disabilities, are the most disadvantaged and non-preferred group within the disability community within the workforce (Metin et al., 2011). This study also shows that individuals with chronic diseases or physical or orthopedic disabilities are generally favored with higher expectations over individuals with mental or multiple disabilities and individuals with blindness and visual impairment on employment accounts (Metin et al., 2011), which clearly shows the discrepancy between disability types and lower expectations from individuals with cognitive disabilities or mental health disorders.

Since the abovementioned figures and research highlight the multiple aspects of both legislation and implementation negativities for individuals with disabilities to access, join, and maintain their work or employment, one possible way to disrupt these negative aspects might be allocating and using inclusive and higher education as a medium to produce better opportunities for individuals with disabilities within the workforce. Thus, the next section focuses on how an inclusive and accessible higher education system might be approached.

3 The Inclusive, Accessible, and Nondiscriminatory Higher Education

With the wicked problem frame and Disability Studies in Education approach in mind, the authors approached disability as a culturally and socially constructed construct that is not equivalent to the impairment, and neither belongs to a simple dichotomy of disability-non-disability perspective (Goodley, 2017). This understanding stems from first, adopting a reconstructivist approach, that is the social model of disability, and second, placing social justice and equity close to the center when tackling multiple issues. The previous sections of this chapter discussed the widespread challenges of inclusion and accessibility from multiple perspectives. This examination aimed to understand why these challenges persist. The main issue now is how to create an inclusive and accessible higher education structure for all stakeholders, including those with and without disabilities. This structure should enable institutional transformation to address and disrupt inequities. Such changes would impact both pre-existing and future processes, helping to break down systemic oppression within society.

Students with disabilities often face lower enrollment and higher dropout rates when compared to their peers without disabilities in higher education. Multiple stakeholders attribute this to unclear decision-making processes within higher education institutions. These unclear processes lead to negative experiences for all stakeholders, including a lack of general knowledge and collaboration needed to create more inclusive environments. As a result there is more ignorance and fewer  proactive efforts toward inclusion (Ristad et al., 2024). However, a report on diversity, equity, and inclusion in European higher education institutions (Claeys-Kulik et al., 2019) shows that seeing disability equality as an explicit value, an institutional social responsibility, or a legal obligation that regulates the systems is much higher than seeing it as a recruitment strategy or quota for students or staff.  Additionally, the understanding of diversity includes a broad range of groups represented on-campus. However, the concept of intersectionality (e.g., disability and gender and/or migration background) is mostly considered as the next step for the future (Claeys-Kulik et al., 2019). Another research study addresses accessibility challenges and criticizes the engagement of all stakeholders in the development of accessible information and communication technology (ICT).  Accessibility should be understood not as a simple concept but as a complex one involving current and potentially new power imbalances when all stakeholders participate. Therefore, participatory action research or case studies specific to the university space and atmosphere might be a better approach to understand and deconstruct this complex system while accounting for its unique culture, politics, and social structure (Seale et al., 2020).

Another significant accessibility issue involves the accessibility of both print, hard-copy, and digital material for students with disabilities in higher education. While institutions are required to provide options and accommodations for students for enhanced learning processes, they are still requiring students to disclose their disability to access these options (Hurley, 2020; Moriña Díez, 2022). Yet only 30% of students self-disclose their disabilities (Hurley, 2020). Thus, it is imperative to provide room for learning opportunities, safe spaces, and a welcoming culture that respects diversity and dignity for students and staff with disabilities. This approach can transform the organizational structure and culture benefitting all stakeholders. It is especially important during periods of rapid change, such as the onset of COVID-19, as it helps reduce resistance and improve comprehension and adaptability to changes, such as the introduction of new software (Kishira & Sasaki, 2023).

One way to advocate for change and reorganization of the higher education system to expand the learning opportunities and accessible experiences for inclusive and accessible higher education is to provide disability support services for students with disabilities (Bacon & Baglieri, 2021; Mendoza-González et al., 2022). Mendoza-González and colleagues (2022) provided eight guidelines for establishing and maintaining an office providing accessibility supports and services, including; (a) curricular adjustments, (b) reasonable adjustments for physical, social, and attitudinal environment, (c) inclusive student mobility, (d) inclusive employability fostering, (e) awareness of disability and accessibility, (f) integration of office of accessibility services within the organizational structure, (g) internal structure, and (h) quality assessment. Griesmeyer-Krentz et al. (2022) further analyzed how disability support services administrators can use their positions as change agents in the higher education institution to create an institutional culture of accessibility with the following points, including (a) overcoming institutional challenges via developing a partnership with stakeholder-allies, (b) advancing proactive accessibility in addition to reactivating accommodation including shifting the narrative from compliance-focused to a more human-centered approach, (c) shifting understanding on learning space from physical to multifaceted learning, including digital spaces. Elaborating on these research findings, it might be a better approach to bridge online and on-campus learning opportunities for students with disabilities, which might provide a more flexible learning experience for them to enhance their engagement; indeed, this reflects on a continuum of support and services that require disability support services staff to be more proactive in meeting these needs (Seale et al., 2015; Young, 2023). Researchers suggest several strategies for improving the overall learning experience for students with disabilities in higher education. First, they emphasize the need to recognize the lack of an inclusive university concept. This recognition is crucial for expanding inclusive education opportunities in higher education. The researchers propose an ecological-integrated inclusive model, characterized as multilevel, multidimensional, multifocal, and diachronic (Damiani et al., 2024). This model operates within a tripartite framework, such as (a) micro level, including special education, digital and assistive technology, (b) meso level, including research- and evidence-based education; and (c) macro level, including universal inclusive education (i.e., Universal Design) (Damiani et al., 2024). Fovet (2021) highlights the importance of the ecological model to balance stakeholder engagement when using the universal design principles in higher education to design an approach that is uniquely owned by the specific higher education institution and reduce the resistance that might be more inclined to be political or organizational than situated within the value system of stakeholders.

3.1 Where Does the Turkish Higher Education System Stand in Inclusive, Accessible, and Nondiscriminatory Higher Education for Individuals with Disabilities?

The Turkish Higher Education Law 2547, enacted in 1981 and revised multiple times since then, is the main legislation governing higher education in Türkiye. Nevertheless, this law does not contain any information regarding students with disabilities. The main legislation about the rights of students with disabilities in higher education is the “Higher Education Institutions Disabled Persons Consultation and Coordination Regulation”, which is prepared in accordance with Law No. 5378 of the Disability Act and published in 2010. In accordance with the said regulation, the responsibility of establishing disability support services unit is given to higher education institutions. According to regulations for forming disability support services, higher education institutions must assign a coordinator, who is either a lecturer or an assistant specialized in disability or a related field. This coordinator operates under the chairmanship and responsibility of a vice-rector. Disability support services directly affiliated with the rectorate are established to identify the administrative, physical, housing needs, and social and academic needs of disabled students, to determine what needs to be done to meet these needs, to plan, implement, and develop the works to be carried out and to evaluate the results of the works carried out. The working procedures and principles of the units are determined by higher education institutions. In addition, all costs of providing services to students with a disability must be paid from the higher educational institutions’ own budgets.

The term disability defined in Article 1-c) (2014) students with disabilities are defined as those who have difficulties in adapting to social life and meeting their daily needs due to losing their physical, mental, spiritual, emotional, and social abilities to various degrees due to any reason, congenital or later, and who have difficulties in protecting themselves. It refers to higher education students who need care, rehabilitation, counseling, and support services. The Council for Higher Education draws very flexible guidelines regarding disability support services even though they have so many responsibilities. Since the Council for Higher Education does not mandate specific professionals who should be hired for disability support services (except an academic faculty and vice-rector) nor create a budget to hire the necessary staff, often the universities establish disability support services but cannot offer any effective services to meet needs of students with disabilities. Therefore, there is a growing body of research that captures the dissatisfaction of the university students with disabilities in Türkiye (Aydın, 2012; Bicer & Iscan, 2020; Erdogan, 2019; Kurt, 2017; Sevinç & Çay, 2017).

In Türkiye, all candidates who want to study at a university must take a centralized exam, which takes place once every year. Based on their exam scores, individuals are  accepted into university programs. Table 2 details, the number of candidates with disability who applied to take the university exam.

Data in Tables 2 and 3 show the significant discrepancy between the applicants and disability types, meaning that some individuals with disabilities experience more hardship than others. In 2016, the number of students with disabilities accepted into university programs was as follows: 1,278 in 4-year undergraduate programs and 1,545 in 2-year associate degree programs, totaling 2,823 students with disabilities. The data indicates that the majority of students with disabilities could not apply to the university entrance exam, and more than half of those who did apply were not admitted to a university program. In the 2022/23 academic year, there were 6,950,142 students enrolled in 208 higher education institutions. Among them, 54,206 were students with disabilities (Council for Higher Education, n.d.). Most of these students were in 2-year associate degree programs, with only 236 pursuing master's degrees and 48 enrolled in doctoral programs. Additionally, 89% of students with disabilities participated in distance education programs rather than face-to-face education (Council for Higher Education, n.d.). This high percentage of students with disabilities in distance education suggests that due to poor accessibility, many students with disabilities prefer distance learning over attending on-campus programs.

Table 2 Number of applicants taken the university entrance exam
Full size table
Table 3 Percentage of applicants taken the university entrance exam based on the type of disability
Full size table

In addition, a general gender divide can be seen among university students with disabilities. 35,088 of this population are men and 19,118 are women (Council for Higher Education, n.d.). Considering that disabled women experience multifaceted discrimination compared to men, both due to their disability and being women, this rate is not surprising. On the other hand, students with physical disabilities and students with blindness and visual impairment have relatively higher access to higher education than other disability groups (Council for Higher Education, n.d.). With the decisions taken in recent years, the Council for Higher Education aims to increase student diversity among disability populations, such as those with autism or deafness and hearing impairment. The Council for Higher Education acknowledges that, although efforts to increase accessibility in higher education have gained momentum, they have not yet reached the desired level. Therefore, few individuals with disabilities can get into a university program (Table 4). Moreover, it is important to have information regarding the services offered to the few students with a disability who could get into a university program.

Table 4 Percentage of university placement of students with disabilities by years
Full size table

The current higher education context has multiple challenges to tackle prior to enhancing the learning experience in an inclusive and accessible nondiscriminatory environment. These challenges include significant deficiencies and inconsistencies in instructional adaptations and assistive technology, and access to lecture notes (Bavli et al., 2020; Gündoğar, 2020), dissatisfaction with disability support services due to limited staff (Gündoğar, 2020), insufficient knowledge of the academic staff on inclusive and accessible teaching and university-wide system of supports for readiness for academic staff for inclusive teaching (Gündoğar, 2020; Özkul et al., 2016), major accessibility issues of digital content of university, including university websites (Şerefoğlu & Henkoğlu, 2019) and websites of university disability support services (Emiroğlu, 2015), and library services (Kazak, 2008), and finally, the need for more inclusive and systematic wide variety supports for students, including academic support (Bavli et al., 2020; Genç & Koçdar, 2020).

Higher education is an important agent of change for individuals with disabilities because it creates employment opportunities and improves future working conditions (Kotera et al., 2019). For instance, research has shown that individuals with disabilities who have a university degree have approximately four times more job opportunities than their peers with disabilities who do not pursue higher education (Lamichhane, 2012). Thus, higher education can help individuals with disabilities overcome adversity, gain greater independence, and achieve a better quality of life (Järkestig Berggren et al., 2016; Moriña & Orozco, 2021). Despite the advantages of higher education, individuals with disabilities face a number of barriers in their education journey, which hinder them from getting into a university program, including the high rates of discrimination (Girli et al., 2016), and limited awareness of challenges students with disabilities face in higher education (Bavli et al., 2020).  This research suggests that even those who could get into a university program are not guaranteed a nurturing experience.

To summarize, the chapter has deconstructed the education and employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities in Türkiye with underlying problems. The second section explained how inclusive and accessible higher education might propose a medium to disrupt the inequity and the demanding need for inclusive and accessible higher education for students with disabilities, especially in Türkiye. Special attention should be paid to taking the necessary measures to ensure the full participation of students with a disability in higher education. The next section provides an example of how Aksaray University, reconstructs its system by the provision of disability support services as change agents. This effort is part of its journey toward becoming a more inclusive and accessible higher education institution despite having limited and low resources.

4 A Case Example of Aksaray University

The university is located in Aksaray, a city in the Central Anatolia region of Türkiye. Aksaray is known as a transit town, particularly for those traveling between Ankara, Konya, and Nevsehir. However, it is also home to some historical buildings, including the Grand Mosque, the Egri Minaret (Türkiye’s version of the Leaning Tower of Pisa), and the Kizil Minaret Cami (mosque with a red minaret). Aksaray University was officially founded in 2006, but its origins can be traced back to 1986 when the Technical Sciences Vocational School was established. This school was a department of the Selçuk University and then the Nigde University when it opened in 1992 (Aksaray University, 2023). The university became Aksaray University in 2006. With 12 faculties on offer, there is an expansive range of courses available for students to study. These include education, engineering, and Islamic studies. The university also boasts 17 research centers, six vocational schools, three institutes, one college, and one training and research hospital (Aksaray University, 2023).

In the 2023/4 academic year, the number of students who were studying for a 2-year associate degree was 4661, 4-years bachelor’s degree was 12,260, master’s degree was 2879, and doctorate degree was 183, a total of 19,983 students (Council for Higher Education, n.d.). In the 2023/4 academic year, in total, 62 students with disabilities were studying at Aksaray University. More details regarding students with disabilities at Aksaray University are provided in Tables 5 and 6. It is important to note that due to stigma and prejudices, many students with disabilities prefer not to self-disclose their disability. Consequently, the number of students with disabilities who attend Aksaray University is uncertain and is anticipated to be higher than official statistics when considering the students with hidden or non-disclosed disabilities.

Table 5 Number of students with a disability at the Aksaray University
Full size table
Table 6 Types of degrees studied by the students with disabilities at the Aksaray University
Full size table

5 Accessibility Provisions at the Aksaray University

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the main legislation regarding the rights of students with disabilities and higher education is the “Higher Education Institutions Disabled Persons Consultation and Coordination Regulation”, this regulation is prepared in accordance with Law No. 5378 of the Disability Act. In line with national legislation, Aksaray University is one of the first universities in Türkiye to take the necessary measures to support students with disabilities. Therefore, in 2013, under the vice-rector, a member of the academic faculty was assigned as disability services coordinator at Aksaray University. Later, an office was allocated to the disability support services. With these developments, the Aksaray University Disability Support Services was established officially (Aksaray University, 2023). In 2016, the “Aksaray University exam practice directive for students with disabilities” was approved in the Aksaray University Senate. According to the Senate, the purpose of this directive is to address and eliminate possible problems that students with disabilities may encounter in course and exam practices while enrolled in associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral programs at Aksaray University. In this context, the directive aims to ensure equal opportunity in education and to organize practices for students with disabilities to conduct exams on equal terms with their peers and in a fair manner (Aksaray University, 2023).

The first author of the chapter was assigned officially as the coordinator of the Disability Support Services at Aksaray University after his complaints and requests for appropriate services for students with disabilities similar to those he encountered during his own higher education experience in Türkiye, the USA, the UK, and Canada. Although the Disability Support Services existed prior to his appointment, the orientation and activities were limited. Thus, the first action after the appointment was to ascertain the number of students with disabilities at Aksaray University. The alternative option was to hire relevant professionals, including disability advisors and accessibility professionals. However, this was not an option due to limited financial resources and the shortage of experts in the country. With the existing conditions’ limitations, the first author reached out to the academic staff in the faculty of education and the department of special education who have diverse backgrounds and expertise related to disability field. This group of eight proactive academic staff allocated some of their time to volunteer to aid the Disability Support Services in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. The first task was to develop a service delivery model. The initial step of the service delivery model included information sessions via informative presentations for all faculty and departments on disability, legal rights and responsibilities, and inclusive approaches for accessible lectures. These sessions lasted for two months. The second step was to appoint representatives from each faculty, college, and center, and these representatives found sub-representatives from each department. Through this service delivery model, Disability Support Services staff, volunteering academic staff, collaborated with faculty, centers, and representatives. These representatives then communicated with their department representatives, and these department representatives would identify students with special needs within their department and would refer them to the Disability Support Services. The Disability Support Services staff would meet with each student with disabilities one-on-one and discuss their rights and support needs. Based on these discussions an informative letter outlining the students' support needs and accommodations would be prepared. These letters were then delivered to all professors who are teaching the particular student ensuring they had access to lectures, learning materials, buildings, and social life.

 With a proactive group of volunteer academic staff from the Department of Special Education, the disability support services, which had no staff except the coordinator, were able to provide students with disabilities access to university life similar to their non-disabled peers. These efforts highlighted the need for accessibility and encouraged the university management to take necessary measures to create an accessible environment for all. In 2018, the university management board published guidelines that all staff must follow to ensure equal opportunities for all students, including those with various disabilities. As a result, all buildings, including faculties, classrooms, libraries, and recreation areas such as food courts, gyms, and pools, were modified to meet the needs of people with disabilities. For example, buildings that were not accessible were equipped with ramps or elevators. All classrooms now have adjustable desks to accommodate wheelchair users and individuals who need desks at different heights. Additionally, all classrooms and offices are equipped with Braille labels. Simply put, wherever needed, ramps, elevators, accessible restrooms, and other features have been provided to ensure that students with disabilities can easily navigate the campus.

Addition to adjustments to the physical environment, essential services such as note-taking assistance, alternative exam arrangements, and other reasonable accommodations are provided free of charge. These services are made possible by hiring part-time student employees and recruiting volunteers. The special education department trains these student employees and volunteers on how to meet the needs of students with disabilities and monitors the services provided. Despite facing several limitations, Aksaray University management has worked hard to create resources for purchasing technological devices to help students with disabilities access learning materials, lectures, and social activities. Funding for these devices comes from various departments, including the Department of Construction and Technical Affairs, the Department of Health, Sports, and Culture, the Department of Financial Affairs, the Department of Information Technology, the Library and Documentation Department, and the faculties, such as the Faculty of Education. Additionally, some projects have secured external funding to purchase assistive technology for students with disabilities. Devices purchased include magnifiers, voice recorders, Braille embossers, tactile graphic machines, screen magnifiers, screen readers, wheelchairs, and canes.

Aksaray University has been offering scholarships and part-time employment opportunities to support financially needy students. Part-time employed students were referred to the disability support services to help meet the needs of students with disabilities by providing services such as note-taking, producing accessible textbooks, and assisting with laboratory experiments or social activities. In 2022, the “Aksaray University Exam Practice Directive for Disabled Students” was updated to align with standards similar to those in developed countries. These updates offer students with disabilities alternative exam arrangements, such as extended time, separate quiet rooms, or the use of assistive technologies during exams based on their needs. Additionally, Aksaray University offers accessible housing options for students with disabilities, including wheelchair-accessible rooms, ramps, and other features to ensure full participation in campus life. These accommodations are not limited to physical adaptations but also include support for participating in all educational and social aspects of university life. The specific accommodations depend on the individual needs of each student and are determined in collaboration with the Disability Support Services and the Department of Special Education. Awareness programs are conducted on important occasions such as International Disability Day to foster understanding and sensitivity among faculty, staff, and students about the needs of individuals with disabilities. These programs aim to create an inclusive and supportive campus community and encourage volunteers to assist in making the university more inclusive. In recent years, the Turkish Council of Higher Education has taken actions to improve access to universities for individuals with disabilities. One such action is the “University without Barriers” project, launched in 2018. This initiative aims to improve access to higher education for students with disabilities by enhancing accessibility in physical spaces, socio-cultural activities, and education. Under this program, universities meeting the required criteria are eligible for University Accessibility Flag Awards and University Accessibility Program Medal Awards. These efforts have been recognized by the Council for Higher Education, and Aksaray University has received several awards for its commitment to becoming an inclusive university for all. Some of these awards are presented in the appendix below.

6 Conclusion

Türkiye is still a developing nation, and there are several measures to be taken to create an equal society and include all citizens with disabilities. Despite existing challenges, there are some positive improvements to enhance life quality of people with disabilities. The number of students who are benefiting from educational services, especially the number of students attending inclusive schools, is increasing significantly. Even though this is an important improvement, there is evidence indicating that these students’ needs could not be met under the existing conditions. Therefore, students with disabilities face a number of barriers to accessing education and developing the necessary skills for the labor market. Consequently, they face significant challenges in accessing higher education and employment. Even though there are positive improvements in legislation, there are serious issues in the implementation of this legislation. Therefore, a comprehensive reform is needed on the rights of people with a disability across all age groups. Nevertheless, despite such major challenges, with the willingness and effort of professionals who are willing to go the extra mile, university students at Aksaray University could be served to meet their needs. The main motivation for writing this chapter is to show that despite all institutional and system-wide barriers, it is possible to lead change in our society. We would like to conclude this chapter by expressing appreciation and gratitude to our colleagues at the Department of Special Education and the university management board for supporting the creation of a more inclusive university. Hopefully, in the near future all states and individuals take the necessary measures to create an accessible society for all.