Exploring the experiences of students with physical disabilities at a university in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Research design

Underpinned by the social constructivism paradigm, this study used phenomenological qualitative research methods, in the form of individual semi-structured interviews, to explore the experiences of students with physical disabilities (including visual, auditory, and mobility disabilities) at the main campus of the university in KwaZulu-Natal. Given the aim of describing the subjective experiences of these students through active engagement, a qualitative approach was considered suitable as it was effective for exploring personal implications, attitudes, and beliefs (Creswell, 2014).

Researcher positionality

The primary research investigator was a fourth-year physiotherapy student with prior exposure to disability-inclusive practice through clinical training and community-based rehabilitation projects. This background provided contextual understanding, while reflexive journaling was maintained to monitor and bracket personal assumptions throughout data collection and analysis.

Research setting

The study was conducted at the main campus of a university in KwaZulu-Natal in pre-arranged rooms, which were easily accessible to all students with physical disabilities choosing to participate in the study. Where necessary, interviews were conducted virtually on Microsoft Teams.

Research population

The study population consisted of students with disabilities, particularly those with physical disabilities (including visual, auditory, and mobility disability) who are enrolled at the main campus of the university in KwaZulu-Natal. To include a diverse range of experiences, the researchers recruited undergraduate students of various genders, races, years of study, and ages, as well as from varying fields of study.

Sampling strategy

To recruit potential participants, the researchers liaised with the Disability Support Unit and provided the unit with an approved information sheet about the study to be posted on the Learn 2025 platform. The sheet included details of the study and the researcher’s contact information to facilitate voluntary participation. Regular emails were sent through the disability support unit as a continuous reminder and recruitment strategy for potential participants. Printed information sheets were also distributed across campus to enable interested individuals to initiate contact and arrange interview appointments. From the interested individuals, the team ensured, as far as possible, representation from each of the colleges at the university - Science, Engineering, Law, Commerce and Management, Humanities, and Health Sciences. The study utilized non-probability purposive sampling, which allowed the conscious selection of individuals who were most informative about the topic and whose unique experiences aligned with the study’s objectives, thus enhancing credibility (Suen et al., 2014). Consistent with Creswell’s (2014) guidance, a sample size of 5 to 25 participants was targeted. Ultimately, eight participants were interviewed, representing the total number of students with physical disabilities enrolled at the University, as confirmed by the disability support unit. While undergraduate and postgraduate students were invited to participate, the final sample consisted solely of undergraduate students.

Data collection

Tools

Prior to the interviews, an interview guide with open-ended questions was developed based on the research objectives and through consultation with a qualitative researcher. The questions informing the interview guide were structured around accessibility and infrastructure, social inclusion, academic achievement and support systems, and policy and implementation. Data were collected through in-person, one-on-one interviews (single researcher per participant) and, where necessary, through Microsoft Teams meetings to ensure inclusion of all selected participants. Audio recorders were used for in-person sessions, and the recording and transcription functions of Microsoft Teams were employed for virtual sessions.

Procedure

Data collection took place during the first and second semesters of 2025. Interviews were conducted at the University’s pre-arranged room or online (Microsoft Teams) during the in-weeks from decentralised clinical training sites (DCTs). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were provided with an information sheet detailing the study objectives, procedures, and their rights, including the right to withdraw at any time. Each interview lasted approximately 45-60 minutes. All eight interviews were conducted by the principal researcher. Data saturation was attained by the fifth interview, as no new information, themes, or codes emerged thereafter. The subsequent interviews produced largely repetitive data, reinforcing the patterns previously identified. Nonetheless, all eight participants registered at the university main campus were interviewed to strengthen the credibility and the richness of the data. All the interviews were recorded for accuracy. Audio recordings were securely stored and accessible only to the researchers and the supervisor. Following each interview, all data were transcribed verbatim, with pseudonyms assigned to maintain anonymity.

Data analysis

Thematic analysis was employed to interpret the qualitative data, following the six-stage process proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Transcripts were read and re-read to familiarise the researchers with the context and content. Following that, codes were generated to aid in identifying repeating ideas, behaviours, or experiences. Themes were reviewed and subsequently defined to form natural clusters, with main themes carefully labelled to capture their essence. Lastly, a summary table was created, including representative quotations and omitting themes that were not well supported.

This systematic approach ensured rigorous analysis and meaningful interpretation of the students’ experiences.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was maintained by using the same interview questions for all participants. Standardization of data collection and analysis methods made it easier to compare information. Member checking was performed by returning verbatim interview transcriptions and concise thematic summaries to the participants for confirmation, enabling them to clarify or amend interpretations. An audit trail was maintained to document analytical decisions. Researchers practiced reflexivity through journaling to record thoughts, emotions, and evolving perceptions throughout the study. Peer debriefing was conducted during data analysis, and triangulation was applied by comparing responses across participants.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance (HSSREC/00008307/2025) was obtained from the university in KwaZulu-Natal Humanities and Social Sciences Research Committee, along with gatekeeper permission from the university Registrar, before data collection began.

Participants signed informed consent forms outlining study objectives, their right to withdraw at any time, and permission for audio recording and note-taking. Confidentiality and anonymity were assured through encrypted, password-protected storage of all recordings. Interview transcripts were labelled with pseudonyms. Participants were informed that they would receive a summary of the findings. In the event of participant distress or disclosure of traumatic experiences, referral to university counselling services was arranged.

Data management

All electronic data were stored on encrypted, password-protected devices accessible only to the researchers and supervisor. Paper records were secured in locked storage. After five years, all data will be destroyed through the crushing of audio recorders, deletion of electronic files, and the shredding of paper documents.

Study findings

Seven (7) themes and twenty-four (24) subthemes, supported by verbatim transcripts, emerged from the data following content analysis, as presented in Table 2.

Students with physical disabilities at a University in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) expressed that, despite positive peer interactions, they still faced barriers to their effective inclusion. Seven main themes, coupled with their subthemes, with verbatim quotations supporting them, were identified in the analysis of the interviews. These include inadequate and misaligned accessibility to campus infrastructure, stakeholder influence on the lack of an adequate accommodating environment, inaccessible and insufficient transport services for students with physical disabilities, attitudinal barriers (Stigmatisation), inconsistencies and gaps in disability support services, positive peer interactions and social inclusion, and possible recommendations for improvement.

Theme 1: Inadequate and misaligned accessibility to campus infrastructure

Through the analysis of the data collected, individual participants highlighted persisting barriers pertaining to accessing campus infrastructure with various assistive devices. Across transcriptions obtained from participants, the above theme was apparent, with supporting subthemes including non-functional elevators, lack of consultation with students on infrastructure planning, and inaccessible lecture venues. These factors affect not only daily functioning but also students’ sense of independence and safety. The following is outlined in the subthemes below.

Subtheme 1.1: Non-functional elevators

Participating students expressed their concerns about the frequent technical issues with the elevators in most university facilities, which limited their access to certain lecture venues around the campus and negatively impacted participants’ academic participation and performance. The following are extracts summarising the above-mentioned grievance:

Subtheme 1.2: Lack of consultation with students on infrastructure planning

Students at the university in KZN highlighted that while adjustments were made to the physical environment, including the building of ramps, they are often misaligned and built in irrelevant and low-priority areas due to a lack of consultation by stakeholders before and during the planning and construction process.

Subtheme 1.3: Inaccessible lecture venues with a lack of universal structural design

Students with physical disabilities at the university in KZN expressed concerns regarding lectures conducted in inaccessible lecture venues. Participants expressed frustration about having to sit at the door due to the presence of stairs inside the lecture venues, hindering their full participation in lectures.

Theme 2: Stakeholder influence on the lack of an adequate, accommodating environment

While stakeholders such as lecturers, disability support unit staff and peers are expected to support the inclusion of students with physical disabilities, participants reported being faced with numerous challenges including lack of will from some stakeholders (lecturers) to make changes to accommodate students in lecture venue selection, challenges with the format of assessments, delayed or absent placement of students with physical disabilities in on-campus residential facilities, increased distance walked to lecture venues, and restricted access to toilets. Students reported that these issues often result in decreased motivation and unequal participation in the academic environment.

Subtheme 2.1: Perceived lack of will and consistent venue adjustments from lecturers

One of the key challenges highlighted by some of the participants was the perceived lack of willingness from certain lecturers to accommodate their needs regarding lecture venue accessibility. Students reported that while some lecturers made efforts to use online alternatives, which limited valuable in-person engagement, some shifted the responsibility of venue selection to other stakeholders. As expressed by the participants, such inconsistencies further perpetuated exclusion, leading to demotivation.

Subtheme 2.2: Challenges with the format of assessments

Participants highlighted physical challenges with some assessment formats offered by various modules, given the type of disability they present with. As expressed by the participants, some assessments required extended periods of standing, an expectation that was not consistently accommodated, despite physical limitations.

Subtheme 2.3: Lack of consideration and delay in placement of students with physical disabilities in on-campus residential facilities

Participants at the university in KZN raised concerns about the delayed placement or lack thereof in on-campus residences, despite submitting residence applications on time. This, they noted, posed challenges with safety and proximity to campus facilities. Furthermore, students expressed a lack of consideration in room level selection at the residential facilities, posing barriers in commuting during times when elevators are out of service due to frequent technical issues.

Subtheme 2.4: Regulated access to toilets

A basic need that is supposed to be readily accessible to all was highlighted as a challenge by students with physical disabilities at the university in KZN. Participants expressed that disability-friendly toilets are often locked, requiring them to seek a staff member to grant them access. Students expressed that while the intention was to maintain the integrity of the facility, this act was an additional burden physically and a constant reminder that these individuals are different compared to the average student on campus.

Theme 3: Inaccessible and insufficient transport services for students with physical disabilities

Students with physical disabilities highlighted facing challenges, including one wheelchair friendly student bus available across different campuses, poor bus design structure for physical access, and overcrowding in buses, disrupting their commute to and from campus.

Subtheme 3.1: Insufficient provision of wheelchair accessible campus buses

Students with physical disabilities at the university in KZN expressed a common grievance of insufficient availability of buses suitable for assistive devices. Participants noted that one wheelchair-accessible bus was available, servicing a limited number of the university campuses. As a result, students were forced to rely on motorised wheelchairs and e-hailing services to attend lectures.

Subtheme 3.2: Poor universal bus design impeding physical access

Some participants described harmful and at times dangerous experiences when boarding standard campus buses. In addition to increasing the quantity of wheelchair-accessible buses, participants reported that adjustments to accessing standard buses were required to accommodate students with physical disabilities.

Subtheme 3.3: Overcrowding in university buses

Participants illustrated that overcrowding in university-provided buses, particularly during peak traffic hours, creates a physically and emotionally taxing experience, especially for students with disabilities. Participants described that for students with chronic pain, the inability to comfortably commute exacerbates discomfort, pain, and fatigue.

Theme 4: Inconsistencies and gaps in disability support services

Students with physical disabilities highlighted positive experiences with the disability support unit at the university campus when essential services are functioning effectively. However, students highlighted shortfalls pertaining to delays in receiving assistive devices (study laptops), a decrease in support quality due to understaffing and limited engagement, a lack of awareness of rights and available resources, requiring special attention for efficient service delivery. Participants expressed that inconsistent and poor implementation of policies and systems undermines their effectiveness.

Subtheme 4.1: Positive experiences of students with services when they are functioning effectively

Participants shared that when the disability support unit is functioning effectively, it fulfils its intended role of student advocacy and provision of relevant support and information.

Subtheme 4.2: Delays in receiving study material (laptops)

Participants acknowledged that procedures are put in place to ensure that each student registered in the disability unit receives the necessary assistive devices and study materials required for their effective participation in academic life. However, some students with disabilities at the university in KZN expressed being met with delays and inadequate following of procedure, resulting in some not receiving study laptops well into the second quarter of the year. Students expressed that long delays in issuing academic tools like laptops prevented them from starting coursework on equal footing with their peers.

Subtheme 4.3: Decrease in support quality due to understaffing and limited engagement

A common expression amongst the participants highlighted a human resource shortfall at the university disability support unit. Participants reported that this shortfall has resulted in overwhelmed personnel, leading to decreased engagement with students and reduced effectiveness of support services.

Subtheme 4.4: Lack of awareness of rights and available resources

Participants highlighted that understaffing at the disability support unit has contributed to poor communication between the unit and students with disabilities. As reported by the interviewed participants, there is no clear explanation of the rights afforded to them and the resources available. Students expressed being ill-equipped to advocate for themselves or access the resources designed to ensure their inclusion and success.

Theme 5: Attitudinal barriers (Stigmatisation)

Students with physical disabilities reported encountering attitudinal barriers that negatively impact their experience and inclusion. These include expressions of pity from staff, comparisons to able-bodied students without accommodation for their challenges, and a lack of inclusive recreational activities. Such perspectives reinforce marginalisation and undermine efforts toward meaningful inclusion.

Subtheme 5.1: Perceived pity from stakeholders

Participants reported feeling frustrated by staff treating them as though they were incapable or ill, rather than as independent individuals. The perception that they require sympathy rather than equitable treatment was seen as disempowering and alienating.

Subtheme 5.2: Comparison with able-bodied students

Participants highlighted instances where they were treated as though they should perform at the same physical level as able-bodied students. These expectations are often disregarded in their disability-related challenges, especially during practical assessments or classes requiring prolonged standing.

Subthemes 5.3: Lack of accommodating recreational activities

Students expressed that opportunities for leisure and recreational involvement were limited by the absence of inclusive or accommodating sports. Efforts to advocate for participation often met institutional resistance, further compounding the exclusion from broader student life.

Theme 6: Positive peer interactions and social inclusion

Many students with physical disabilities at the university main campus described positive and meaningful interactions with their peers. These relationships fostered a sense of belonging and made the university experience more manageable and socially fulfilling. Participants shared that they felt understood and included by fellow students, and that in instances where physical access was not a limitation, they actively participated in campus activities.

Subtheme 6.1: Supportive interpersonal relationships with non-disabled peers

Peers were often described as empathetic and supportive, creating a social environment that helped students with disabilities feel seen and respected. This understanding helped reduce feelings of isolation and fostered positive interpersonal connections.

Subthemes 6.2: Participation in recreational activities

Students expressed that when venues for events or gatherings were accessible, they were able to participate fully. Being able to engage in campus life alongside peers provided a sense of normalcy and inclusion, allowing students with disabilities to enjoy the same university experiences as others.

Theme 7: Student-centred future recommendations

Participants expressed valuable strategies to ensure that the university main campus in KZN is accessible and inclusive in all aspects for current and future students. Recommendations made included timely consultation with students with disabilities prior to making infrastructural changes, an increase in the fleet of wheelchair-accessible and disability-friendly campus buses, consideration and accommodation of students with disabilities in assessment formats, and improvement in human resource allocation at the disability support unit.

Subtheme 7.1: Timely consultation with students with disabilities prior to making infrastructural changes

Participants suggested that stakeholders actively consult them and involve them in the planning and design of new infrastructure projects to ensure that their needs are meaningfully addressed.

Subtheme 7.2: An increase in the fleet of wheelchair-accessible and disability-friendly buses

Participants recommended an increase in the number of wheelchair-accessible buses to solve the issue of overcrowding. Students further called for consistency in the availability of transport to be accommodated during adverse weather conditions and exam periods.

Subtheme 7.3: Provision of tailored assessment and learning accommodations to promote equal participation

Participants suggested that assessment environments be adjusted to the individual needs of the student as far as possible. Additionally, to ensure continuous learning for those who might not be able to attend lectures during episodes, participants suggested the provision of recorded lectures.

Subtheme 7.4: Improvement in human resource allocation and student engagement by the disability support unit

Students recommended an increase in human resources to ensure a balanced distribution of work, as well as ensuring that existing disability policies are actively and consistently applied. Participants further expressed the need for seminars to be held for students registered under the disability support unit to help express their concerns in real time.

Subtheme 7.5: Maintenance of university infrastructure

Participants suggested frequent servicing of elevators to ensure inclusion of students with physical disabilities in accessing lecture venues and to avoid what they perceived as institutional neglect towards their needs.

Inadequate and misaligned accessibility to campus infrastructure

The issue of inadequate and misaligned accessibility to campus infrastructure has sparked concern among students with disabilities at the university in KZN. It begs the question of “Is it still inclusion if it is non-functional?”. In alignment with national policies on inclusion, the university in KZN has successfully altered the physical environment in its efforts to be inclusive; however, it has failed to ensure maintenance of the infrastructure for continued access. Students expressed concerns about non-functional elevators dating back three years. This issue highlights the concept of inclusion without intent, where inclusionary practices are symbolic rather than transformative. Moriña (2017) echoes similar findings where accessibility measures are often implemented in ways that remain superficial and incoherent with the students’ lived realities. This performative inclusion further supports the marginalization of students with disabilities in our study, corroborating Mutanga’s (2017) argument that higher education institutions often chase policy compliance over effective, meaningful, and sustained implementation. Most importantly, inclusion is not only about inclusion, but about intent, sustainability, and accountability.

Further exclusionary practices are highlighted in the lack of consultation with students with disabilities when designing the physical environment. Highlighted in the works of Collins et al. (2018) is the lack of meaningful involvement of students with disabilities in the process of decision-making, particularly in the construction of new infrastructure. Facilities are designed for them rather than with them. At the university in KZN, similar findings are apparent, with the tension between the appearance of inclusion and its practical reality evident in the construction of ramps in irrelevant and low-priority areas, as well as in lecture venue design that does not allow for access with various assistive devices. Ndlovu (2019) argues that often higher education institutions focus on individual accommodation rather than holistic institutional structural transformation to ensure true inclusion. This is the social model of disability in practice, where environmental barriers are created by infrastructure that is intended to promote inclusion due to a lack of universal design and consultation (Ndlovu, 2019). Moreover, the concepts of equality and equity are questioned. While ramps and elevators signal equal provision, they fail to ensure equitable participation as they are misaligned with the lived needs of the students. As suggested by Cumming and Rose (2021), such issues call for the consideration of universal design principles and student participation in planning to shift accessibility from being a symbolic gesture to a transformative act that genuinely promotes inclusion.

Stakeholder influence on the lack of an adequate, accommodating environment

Key role players in ensuring the inclusion of students with physical disabilities in higher education institutions are stakeholders who include, but are not limited to, lecturers, housing officials, and officials in the disability support unit, tasked to see to the adequate provision of the needs of students with disabilities (Mutanga, 2017; Goodall et al., 2024). Literature reveals that stakeholders’ attitudes and actions play a vital role in the creation of an enabling environment where students can thrive (Mutanga, 2017; Moriña, 2017). While this is true, students with physical disabilities at the university in KZN continue to face challenges, revealing systemic failures prevalent at the institution. While policy frameworks emphasize equity and inclusion, the findings highlight an important mismatch between institutional commitments and day-to-day realities, a reality evident in the literature (Ndlovu, 2019).

A recurring issue raised by the students in our study is the lack of willingness from lecturers to adjust lecture venues to accommodate accessibility needs consistently. While online alternatives were sometimes provided, the invaluable experience of in-person interaction was lost, further perpetuating exclusion in academic and social engagement. This is congruent with a study conducted by Mutanga and Walker (2017) at the University of the Free State and the University of Venda, which highlighted gaps in unfavourable attitudes about disabilities, gaps in academic support, and inadequate accommodation, all of which undervalue the unique needs and expectations of students with disabilities. As highlighted by leading scholars, the reluctance or limited awareness of disability rights perpetuates structural barriers and reinforces inequality (Moswela & Mukhopadhyay, 2011; Mutanga & Walker, 2017). As Howell (2015) reflects, this lack of will reveals a greater issue of institutional cultures where access to education that is fair and just is treated as an option rather than a constitutional right that is integral to teaching practice.

Mutanga and Walker (2017) discuss an important issue about the reliance of higher education institutions on rigid, standardized formats of assessment. These practices often fail to accommodate diverse physical needs, further disadvantaging students with disabilities in the academic sphere. Similar sentiments were echoed by students with physical disabilities at the our study, where participants revealed a challenge of non-inclusive assessment design, where some were expected to stand for a prolonged period during practical assessments or laboratory-based tasks. This is of particular concern regarding the academic performance of students with disabilities at this institution.

One of the first steps to eroding the sense of belonging of students with physical disabilities from the university community is by failing to provide accommodating residential placements. Hong (2015) reflects that accommodation is one of the leading stressors for any university student, a burden that is notably greater for students with physical disabilities. The study findings reveal that this is a reality for some students with disabilities at the university in KZN, with placement of these students in residences that are far from campus and on floors that are difficult to access, creating additional physical and psychological burdens. Ndlovu (2019) describes this as systemic neglect, where institutional housing policies fail to adequately prioritize accessibility needs, further revealing the removed sense of responsibility from those allocated to make decisions.

The lack of alignment of regulatory practices to dignity and autonomy has the unfortunate effect of turning well-meaning practices into exclusionary practices. Students revealed that toilets are often locked, requiring them to look for a staff member to grant them access. As highlighted by Shakespeare (2006), practices embedded in pity or overprotection reproduce exclusion by cementing the ideas of being different, rather than encouraging independence. The accounts of students with physical disabilities at the university in KZN on access to toilets reveal barriers that force them to consistently negotiate for their basic human rights.

The findings above reveal that an adequate, accommodating environment is not only due to the lack of appropriate infrastructure but is also an important function of role players to implement and carry out inclusive practices. Mutanga and Walker (2017) suggest that shifting inclusion from compliance-based practices to a proactive and equity-driven approach will address existing structural and attitudinal barriers towards students with physical disabilities in higher education institutions.

Inaccessible and insufficient transport services for students with physical disabilities

Inaccessible and insufficient transport services at the university in KZN have caused significant inconvenience and discomfort for students with disabilities. The campus reportedly has only a single wheelchair-accessible bus to cater to the transport needs of all students with physical disabilities. Gibberd and Hankwebe (2022) identifies transport as a major national barrier for people with disabilities in South Africa, posing a significant obstacle to accessing higher education. Gibberd’s and Hankwebe (2022) findings are consistent with the occurrences in our study, with added challenges of overcrowding and lack of universal design in the general university buses.

In a study conducted by Ngcobo (2019) at the UKZN Howard College, the author documented that infrastructural and logistical barriers continue to be an obstacle. Similarly, in addition to the transport challenges experienced by students with physical disabilities in our study, residential placement in off-campus residences resulted in logistical challenges leading to physical strain and exclusion from lectures.

These experiences highlight the lack of stakeholder awareness and consultation with students regarding transport needs, reflecting a gap in applying the social model of disability and undermining equitable access (Mutanga, 2017).

Inconsistencies and gaps in disability support services

Previous studies have highlighted that, in line with South Africa’s post-apartheid transformation agenda, higher education institutions, have established support structures such as disability units specifically for students with physical disabilities (Mutanga, 2017). However, despite these efforts, the disability units are often understaffed, which yields inconsistencies in the quality and availability of services provided to students with physical disabilities (Sibadela, Munzhelele & Budeli, 2025).

The findings of this study support these earlier observations. The relationship between disability units and students with physical disabilities, which was intended to enhance their social and academic experiences, has instead given rise to their grievances. The most prominent theme in the interviews was the concern that only one employee from the disability unit is tasked with duties to cater to the diverse needs of all the students with disabilities at the university’s main campus in KZN. This understaffing is subsequently perceived as the primary source of all the grievances about inconsistency in service delivery. Additionally, this poses an injustice to students with physical disabilities as they end up not receiving important information, assistance, and clarification, thus negatively affecting their whole experience in their academic and social life at the university. This raises questions about the alignment of the university’s vision and mission with the actual implementation of disability support structures at the university in KZN.

The findings are supported by Mutanga (2017) and Ngcobo (2019), who similarly observed that despite the successful establishment of the disability unit as a support structure at the universities, students with physical disabilities remain unaware of the rights afforded to them and information on how to access their assistive technologies or study materials. This highlights the persistent gap between policy intentions and practical implementation, whereby inclusive efforts remain mainly theoretical rather than fully operational.

Participants further reported challenges in accessing study material, such as laptops. Unlike their peers without disabilities, they were required to navigate additional processes for them to receive these devices, which was not communicated to them in advance but was only shared with the students after they expressed their confusion pertaining to this issue. This lack of support and upfront information contributed to significant delays, such as receiving laptops only in the second quarter of the year, thereby hindering the full participation of students with physical disabilities in academic activities. These findings further support Mutanga’s (2017) argument that disability support services are not only inconsistent but are also reactive, addressing issues only after students raise concerns, rather than employing proactive strategies to ensure equitable access.

While some participants expressed positive reviews about the disability support services in our study, the majority remain marginalised to a certain extent, as they expressed that the lack of urgency and responsiveness conveyed by the disability unit undermines the university’s initiatives to foster an inclusive environment for students with physical disabilities. This highlights the presence of systemic gaps and inconsistencies in disability support services, where policies and structures often fail to translate into effective practice.

These findings highlight the need to increase human resources within the disability unit at the university in KZN to ensure a more equitable distribution of workload and to actively bridge the gap between existing disability policies and their implementation within the university systems.

Attitudinal barriers (Stigmatisation)

Stigmatization is an attitudinal barrier experienced by students with physical disabilities in our study, and it is manifested primarily through pity from stakeholders, comparison with able-bodied students, and a lack of inclusive recreational opportunities. These factors collectively reinforce a medicalised view of disability that undermines self-worth and inclusion. In this way, sympathy becomes a subtle form of exclusion.

Pity disguised as concern portrays students with disabilities as fragile or ill, perpetuating the idea that they require special treatment rather than equal opportunity. Mutanga (2017) similarly found that students with disabilities are often perceived through a medical lens, where the physical disability is seen before the students’ academic capability. Such attitudes diminish independence and reinforce subtle exclusion, even within environments that claim to be inclusive. Stakeholders may believe that pity is kindness, yet it leaves students feeling excluded.

Structural inaccessibility is compounded by attitudinal neglect. Instead of recognizing the need for reasonable accommodations, students with physical disabilities are compared to able-bodied students and expected to adapt in the same way. These comparisons undermine confidence by implying that success is measured only against able-bodied students. Mutanga and Walker (2017) emphasize that higher education institutions often project inclusivity yet continue to reinforce exclusion by catering to able-bodied students.

The neglect of a student’s holistic life beyond the classroom further perpetuates exclusion. Ngcobo (2019) argues that when students are denied opportunities to participate in sport, culture, and leadership, they are positioned as passive recipients rather than active contributors to campus life. The absence of inclusive recreational platforms fosters isolation and denies students full expression of their identities. Academic accommodations alone are insufficient; true inclusivity requires universities to invest in accessible facilities and actively promote the achievements of students with disabilities.

Positive peer interactions and social inclusion

According to Fernández-Batanero et al. (2022), peer support plays a crucial role in ensuring social inclusion and academic success in higher education institutions, more so for students with physical disabilities. In alignment with this, participants in our study reported that despite the domination of structural and systemic barriers, peer support was a crucial enabler of participation and belonging. Peers and classmates often assist with practical tasks, including lecture recordings, navigating inaccessible areas, and carrying materials, thus easing physical challenges while fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion. Participants emphasised that being included in conversations, study groups, and social activities contributed to their sense of normalcy and belonging and reduced isolation caused by institutional barriers. These experiences show that peer support is highly valued for its sense of empowerment and genuineness.

Student-centred future recommendations

To advance accessibility and inclusion for students with disabilities at the university in KZN, participants recommended several actionable measures grounded in the social model of disability and supported by existing literature. First, the university should establish structured, continuous consultation with students with disabilities at every stage of infrastructural planning, needs assessment, implementation, and maintenance, so that changes are designed with students rather than for them, in line with universal design principles (Mutanga, 2017; Mutanga & Walker, 2017). Ensuring the availability of a formal maintenance plan for accessibility features such as ramps and elevators is essential to prevent disruptions that may perpetuate exclusion of students with disabilities.

Transport services require significant improvement through increasing the number of wheelchair-accessible buses, enhancing scheduling during peak and examination periods, and actively consulting students to assess service adequacy, consistent with universal design and equitable access principles (Gibberd and Hankwebe, 2022).

Strengthening the Disability Support Unit is equally important: participants called for additional staff to provide timely responses to concerns and for regular feedback meetings or seminars to promote accountability, reflecting the need for effective implementation of supportive frameworks rather than mere policy adoption (Mutanga & Walker, 2017). Existing disability-support policies should be reviewed and consistently applied across colleges and administrative units to prevent tokenistic compliance and ensure genuine inclusion (Mutanga & Walker, 2017).

Finally, teaching and assessment practices must incorporate flexible, individualized accommodations, including extra examination time, accessible seating, adaptive equipment for practical sessions, and systematic provision of recorded lectures, embedding these measures within institutional policy so that equitable participation is guaranteed regardless of individual lecturer discretion (Mutanga & Walker, 2017).

Recommendations

In alignment with findings in the experiences of students with physical disabilities at the university in KZN, it is proposed that a consultative approach be adopted when initiating infrastructural adjustments and in transport systems, promoting universal design principles, and therefore fostering equitable access for all. Furthermore, it is of paramount importance that existing disability inclusion policies be strengthened through regular monitoring and accountability, thus ensuring intentional implementation. To combat grievances pertaining to inconsistencies and gaps within the disability support unit, steps should be taken to increase human resource capacity to foster effective communication and service delivery to students with disabilities. Lastly, to address stigmatisation and promote a culture of inclusion, regular educational seminars should be implemented for both staff and students, providing a platform for students with disabilities to share their grievances. These steps will foster a more inclusive environment for current and future students at the university in KZN.

For further exploration, future researchers should consider exploring the perspectives of stakeholders to further understand systemic barriers from different vantage points.

Study limitations

This study was conducted at a single campus within the university in KwaZulu-Natal, limiting possible varying campus experiences and the sample size. Furthermore, the exclusive focus on physical disabilities limited potential participants with disabilities registered at the university in KZN. Therefore, generalisation of this study should be practiced with caution.