Getting Global with It: The Rapid Growth in Higher Education and Disability-Focused Professional Literature

Abstract

This systematic review examines the evolution of higher education and disability-focused professional literature from 2013 to 2022, conducted across 77 countries. The review highlights the geographical distribution of the literature, methodologies utilized, and disability types represented in the publications. Results indicate the majority of the literature is concentrated in North America and Europe, with a principal focus on non-intervention research. Additionally, the review examines the thematic focus of the research, with results highlighting an emphasis on student-level studies. The current state of global higher education and disability literature emphasizes the impact of international legislative documents, declarations, and mandates on postsecondary education trends for individuals with disabilities. Lastly, insight is provided regarding areas that merit exploration to further advance higher education for individuals with disabilities worldwide.

1. Introduction

The number of students with disabilities attending higher education globally has significantly increased during the past 20 years, though determining the precise number of students with disabilities participating in higher education is often difficult [1]. However, countries such as Singapore, Botswana, and Australia have individually reported growth in the number of college students with disabilities and expressed the necessity of addressing policy and accessibility in higher education [2,3,4]. The increase in student participation has catalyzed researchers, educators, postsecondary administrators, and politicians to recognize and emphasize the increasingly important relationship among international legislation, policies, and higher education disability services.

1.1. International Legislation and Disability Policy

The United Nations (UN) has identified education as a fundamental right for everyone, including individuals with disabilities. The Convention of Rights on Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has stated that safe, equal, and accessible education is a human right [5]. For decades, education frameworks such as the World Declaration on Education for All [6] and the Millennium Development Goals [7] have advocated for education for all students, including students with disabilities. There have also been more specific disability declarations, like the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action, adopted as a “worldwide consensus on future directions for special needs education” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1994, p. iv) [8]. This declaration was the result of a convention that was organized by the Special Needs Education Department at the UNESCO after they determined the ‘Education for All’ documents did not account for disability issues [9].

Following these groundbreaking documents, advocates argued for legally binding declarations that would provide protected rights for people with disabilities [10]. This resulted in the CRPD and its Optional Protocol, adopted December 13, 2006 and ratified by 100 countries in total as of May 2022 [11]. The CRPD was developed to address the rights of people with disabilities in a variety of contexts including education and employment [5]. Moreover, the CRPD encourages continued reporting from countries on their progress towards its goals and has established a Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, members of which provide feedback to the countries implementing the policies [12].

This committee has also subsequently published documents, including General comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, which mentions the concept of ‘transition’, the shift occurring from school to postsecondary education and eventually work, as part of the features of inclusion [13]. The document outlines the need for reasonable accommodations provided during transition, including assessment measures and certifications of capacity equal to those of their peers [13]. Since the 2006 CRPD, multiple documents have been published by the UN addressing the need to support education for all and highlighting the inclusion of persons with disabilities within their scope. These include the European Disability Strategy 2010–2020; the Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021–2030; and Sustainable Development Goals, which is made up of 17 goals designed to impact the globe.

Still, most notably, the introduction of the CRPD influenced several countries’ policies globally. For example, Mexico ratified the CRPD in 2007 and in 2011 they reformed their previous federal law for persons with disability to align with the CRPD [14,15]. The updated legislation was a much more extensive outline of the rights of people with disabilities. It included the provision of inclusion of individuals with disabilities at all levels of the education system [16]. Additionally, Spain adopted policies that integrated provisions from the CRPD, while Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have all taken recommendations from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into account within their policies and programs [17,18]. With the globalization of the CRPD and the push for education for all as well as inclusion of persons with disabilities, it is necessary to examine how both research and practice have been affected.

1.2. Increase in International Higher Education and Disability Literature

The field of higher education and disability has experienced a remarkable expansion in scholarly attention over the past decade, particularly on an international scale. Madaus et al. [19] highlighted a nearly 1400% increase in the number of international research publications addressing higher education and disability between 2013 and 2022, compared to the previous 60 years. This rapid increase in professional literature reflects not only a growing global interest in the inclusion of students with disabilities in higher education but also a significant shift in where and how this research is being conducted.

In an earlier systematic review by Madaus et al. [20], which included publications from 1952 to 2012, it was found that only 8.5% of articles were conducted outside of the United States, Great Britain, or Canada. This limited geographic focus underscored a gap in the refereed publications, with most research originating from a few Western countries, which historically has resulted in them often setting the agenda for disability services and policies in higher education. The dominance of research from these regions could be attributed to their early adoption of disability rights legislation. However, this also meant the experiences and contexts of students with disabilities in other parts of the world were underrepresented in the academic discourse.

1.3. Rationale for the Current Systematic Review

The rapid expansion of higher education globally reflects a significant increase in the number of students with disabilities attending postsecondary institutions as well as a dramatic increase in the volume of published professional literature addressing this topic [1,19]. Despite the marked increase in both enrollment and research output related to students with disabilities, there has not been a comprehensive analysis focusing on the geographic distribution, research methodologies, and thematic trends of the international literature. Previous reviews, such as that conducted by Madaus et al. [20], highlighted the preponderance of studies conducted in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, with minimal representation from other international regions. However, the CRPD era has likely catalyzed a diversification in the origins of research, as countries around the world have adopted and adapted inclusive policies and practices.

Given the growing global access to postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities [2,3,4] and the corresponding expansion of the literature base [19], there is a need to systematically review and analyze the current state of higher education and disability literature. The findings of this systematic review will not only contribute to improved understanding of the global dynamics at play in higher education and disability research but may also inform future research, policy development, and practice aimed at advancing accessibility and inclusion in postsecondary education worldwide.

The following research questions guided the systematic review of the international literature on higher education and students with disabilities participation:

• What countries are represented in the English-language international professional literature focused on higher education and disability, and how many countries are included?
• What research methodologies have been employed in studies related to college services for students with disabilities?
• What types of samples have been studied in the English-language international professional literature on higher education and disability, and how do they vary across the represented countries?
• What topics have been investigated in the research on college services for students with disabilities?

2. Methods

Given the large number of articles that were published internationally, the purpose of this article is to summarize this aspect of the literature corpus. As noted previously, the results of the entire systematic review have been published [19]. The reader is encouraged to review this publication [19] for an additional description of the methods utilized.

2.1. Systematic Review Procedures

The PRISMA Guidelines [21] were utilized to guide a systematic review of the literature from 2013 to 2022 addressing higher education and disability. This systematic review [19] was a 10-year update of a previous systematic literature review covering the period from 1952 to 2012 [20]. A comprehensive Boolean search in ERIC, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, and Medline databases was utilized to gather articles. This search string was used in all of the databases: (“college student” or “university student” or “postsecondary education” or “college admission” or “higher education” or “student affairs” or “student services” or “student personnel”) AND (disability* or “hearing impair*” or deaf or disabled or handicap or ADHD or ADD or dyslex* or blind or disabilities or accommodation or “mental illness” or “mobility impairment” or “visual impair*”). In addition, a hand search of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability (JPED), as well as articles that were included in subsequent sub-analysis publications from the original 2018 study was conducted and relevant articles were included. Articles from these three sources were combined into a database and duplicates were removed.

The titles and abstracts were then reviewed by two team members to determine if the article met the study’s inclusion criteria and a third member broke ties when applicable. Inclusion criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal in English and being about postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities. Exclusion criteria included publications not in English and those about secondary-level transition programs based in higher education settings. Also excluded were publications in which the student’s disability was only self-reported as well as those in which an array of college students was gathered and screened and subsequently compared based on the results of the screening process. The initial reliability for the title and abstract review was 87.7%. For publications that remained following this phase of the systematic review, the full text was then reviewed by team members. One quarter of the articles during the full-text review were double-coded and there was a reliability of 94.2% at this phase.

Articles that remained after the full-text review were then also coded by team members in order to develop a database that allowed comparison across articles in order to aggregate and summarize the data (See Figure 1). The coding sheet included questions about research methodology and the demographics of the populations under study as well as the geographic location and type of university. In addition, the topic of the article was coded using an adaptation of the Postsecondary Access and Student Success (PASS) taxonomy [19].

The PASS taxonomy developed by Dukes et al. [22], updated in 2022, provides a structured framework for categorizing research on higher education and disability across four domains. The Student-Focused Support domain addresses areas such as self-determination skills, career development, and students’ use of accommodations. The Program- and Institutional-Focused Support domain examines aspects like program development, institutional policies, and evaluations of disability services. The Faculty-Focused Support domain explores faculty knowledge and attitudes toward disability, as well as professional development initiatives for faculty. Lastly, the Non-Accessibility Services Staff Support domain includes staff knowledge and attitudes toward disability, as well as professional development initiatives for staff. By organizing research into these domains and subdomains, the PASS taxonomy facilitates a systematic analysis of global practices and policies, highlighting areas for improvement and innovation in supporting students with disabilities.

2.2. Data Analysis Procedures for the Present Study

As the original systematic review was less international in scope [20], the coding sheet used for the second systematic review [19] allowed for other to be selected when the article was not published in the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom. When other was selected, the coder provided a text response regarding the country or countries that were present in the study. These data were cleaned to ensure correct spelling and use of country names that are consistent with the UN SDG nosology [23]. A variable was then calculated to represent the UN region to which each country is designated. The only deviation from the UN approach was to separate North America and Europe as the purpose of this paper was to explore the internationalization of the literature base. There were 37 studies in which data were collected across two different countries (n = 28) or it was not clear where the data were collected (n = 9). A variable was calculated to filter these 37 articles out of the database when the analyses were conducted. Additionally, as coders could select multiple disability categories present in the sample, a variable was also calculated to represent whether the sample was entirely made up of visible disabilities, hidden disabilities, or both. Visual disabilities are those that may be readily observable given their distinct characteristics (e.g., deafness) or due to an assistive device (e.g., wheelchair), while hidden disabilities are not immediately observable (e.g., cognitive, learning, or mental health conditions) [24,25].

3. Results

A total of 2021 articles remained following the full text review and 1516 contained original data so the geographic location of the study was coded. After removing the 37 articles where the location was unclear or where data were collected across multiple countries, 1479 articles were included in the present study. A total of 77 different countries were represented in the literature (See Figure 2). Over three quarters of the studies were published in North America (n = 857; 57.94%) and Europe (n = 302; 20.42%) as depicted in

Table 1. Research type by UN region.

Region/ Research Type	Central and Southern Asia (n = 21)		Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (n = 55)		Europe (n = 302)		Latin America and Caribbean (n = 12)		Northern Africa and Western Asia (n = 98)		Northern America (n = 857)		Oceania (n = 54)		Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 80)		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
Instrument Development	0	0.0%	3	5.5%	3	1.0%	1	8.3%	1	1.0%	12	1.4%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	20
Group Intervention Design	2	9.5%	8	14.5%	24	7.9%	0	0.0%	22	22.4%	97	11.3%	1	1.9%	2	2.5%	156
Mixed Methods	4	19.0%	6	10.9%	25	8.3%	0	0.0%	9	9.2%	83	9.7%	10	18.5%	10	12.5%	147
Qualitative	8	38.1%	10	18.2%	161	53.3%	7	58.3%	21	21.4%	270	31.5%	28	51.9%	61	76.3%	566
Descriptive	6	28.6%	27	49.1%	86	28.5%	4	33.3%	45	45.9%	353	41.2%	15	27.8%	6	7.5%	542
Single Subject	1	4.8%	1	1.8%	2	0.7%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	40	4.7%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	44
Other	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	0.3%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	2	0.2%	0	0.0%	1	1.3%	4

. The United States accounted for just over half of the articles (n = 762, 51.5%).

3.1. Research Methods

Table 1 spells out the research methods used across the UN regions. Northern Africa and Western Asia had the highest proportion of articles that utilized group intervention designs (22.4%) while Europe and Latin America had the highest percentage of qualitative research designs (53.3% and 58.3%, respectively). Another way to parse these data are to explore the percentage of articles that utilized intervention (i.e., group and single subject designs) versus non-intervention research. All of the studies in Latin America and the Caribbean region involved non-intervention research and almost all of the research in the Oceania and Sub-Saharan Africa regions were also non-intervention research (98.1% and 97.4%, respectively). In Europe, approximately 90% of the articles involved non-intervention research (91.4%). Central and Southern Asia, Eastern and Southeastern Asia, and North America had similar percentages of non-intervention research (85.7%, 83.6%, and 84.0%, respectively). Finally, Northern Africa and Western Asia had the lowest percentage of non-intervention research (77.6%). The disproportionate focus on non-intervention research across regions underscores a critical gap in actionable insights. For instance, while 82.8% of studies in North America and 90.4% of international studies are non-intervention, regions such as Latin America report no intervention-based research. This finding raises questions about the readiness of these regions to implement evidence-based practices.

3.2. Disabilities Represented

Almost 1000 articles (n = 996) presented information regarding the disabilities represented in the sample that could be coded into whether visible disabilities were solely included, hidden disabilities were solely included, or whether both visible and hidden disabilities were included in the sample. Just over half the publications (n = 505, 50.7%) were gathered from the United States’ samples while just less than half were from international samples (n = 491; 49.3%).

Table 2. Disability type by UN region.

Region/ Disability Type	Central and Southern Asia (n = 17)		Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (n = 47)		Europe (n = 205)		Latin America and Caribbean (n = 9)		Northern Africa and Western Asia (n = 82)		Northern America (n = 602)		Oceania (n = 35)		Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 62)		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
Visible	11	64.7%	35	74.5%	41	20.0%	6	66.7%	27	32.9%	97	16.1%	10	28.6%	48	77.4%	275
Hidden	3	17.6%	7	14.9%	95	46.3%	2	22.2%	47	57.3%	327	54.3%	14	40.0%	3	4.8%	498
Both	3	17.6%	6	12.8%	54	26.3%	0	0.0%	6	7.3%	136	22.6%	9	25.7%	9	14.5%	223

reports the number of articles in each category by UN region. Far fewer publications addressed the remaining two domains. Northern Africa and Western Asia as well as North America had a majority of studies with solely hidden disabilities (57.3% and 54.3%). Approximately one quarter of the articles from Europe and Oceania had samples with both visible and hidden disabilities (26.3% and 25.7%). The remaining regions had at least 64% of their studies drawn solely from visible disabilities. Samples comprised solely of visible disabilities were twice as likely to be present in international (n = 181; 36.9%) versus United States samples (n = 94, 18.6%).

Figure 3 reflects the percentage of articles by PASS domain and UN region. PASS domains reflected in the figure are as follows: Domain 1, Student-Focused Support; Domain 2, Program- and Institutional-Focused Support; Domain 3, Faculty-Focused Support; and Domain 4, Non-Accessibility Services Staff Focused Support. The Figure clearly reflects significant attention paid to students, with accessibility service publications a distant second. Far fewer publications addressed the remaining two domains.

3.3. Article Topic

As noted previously, the topic of each article was coded using an adaptation of the PASS taxonomy [19]. The second version of the PASS taxonomy separated articles into four domains: (1) students, (2) accessibility services staff, (3) faculty, and (4) non-accessibility services staff. Within each topic, multiple subtopics could be coded. For the purposes of this analysis, we will provide a domain-level analysis. Across the 1479 articles included in this study, only 7 (0.47%) did not clearly fit in a domain.

Table 3. Article topic by UN region.

Region/ Research Type	Central and Southern Asia (n = 21)		Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (n = 55)		Europe (n = 302)		Latin America and Caribbean (n = 12)		Northern Africa and Western Asia (n = 98)		Northern America (n = 857)		Oceania (n = 54)		Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 80)		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
Student	16	76.2%	46	83.6%	227	75.2%	7	58.3%	81	82.7%	665	77.6%	41	75.9%	63	78.8%	1146
Accessibility Services	1	4.8%	4	7.3%	22	7.3%	2	16.7%	3	3.1%	98	11.4%	10	18.5%	6	7.5%	146
Faculty	2	9.5%	5	9.1%	48	15.9%	3	25.0%	13	13.3%	57	6.7%	1	1.9%	9	11.3%	138
Staff	2	9.5%	0	0.0%	5	1.7%	0	0.0%	1	1.0%	31	3.6%	1	1.9%	2	2.5%	42
‘Fit Not Clear’	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	6	0.7%	1	1.9%	0	0.0%	7

depicts the number and percentage of articles for each domain by UN region. More of the articles published from Eastern and South-Eastern Asia and Northern Africa and Western Asia regions (83.6% and 82.7%) involved student-level studies. The least proportion of student-level studies was published from the Latin America and Caribbean region (58.3%). An almost identical proportion of studies drawn from United States samples (77.7%) and international samples (77.3%) involved student-level studies. Accessibility service provider-focused studies were more prevalent in United States samples (11.8%) than international samples (7.8%). Faculty-focused studies were more likely to be published internationally (12.6%) versus in the United States (6.3%). Non-accessibility service staff-focused studies were more likely to be drawn from United States-based samples (3.7%) versus international samples (1.96%).

4. Discussion

The current analysis examined the proliferation of empirical studies examining postsecondary education and individuals with disabilities at a global level. This analysis is a subset of ongoing work examining the postsecondary disability field from its inception in the 1950s to 2024, with the specific focus of this analysis isolating the global changes across the literature in the last 10 years in the areas of UN-identified global regions producing empirical studies, research methodologies employed, the variety of disabilities (visible vs. hidden) under study, and PASS taxonomy topics under examination. Finally, overall trends at the global level between the literature published in the last 10 years in comparison to the prior period starting in the 1950s, as examined by Madaus and colleagues (2018, 2024), is discussed with implications for accessibility services staff and scholars interested in this rapidly expanding field.

4.1. Examining Findings by Research Question

It is not surprising that, with increased attention to disability policies like the CRPD, 77 different countries were represented in the literature reviewed. While this number presents an expansion of 48% from the 52 countries presented in the 2018 article by Madaus and colleagues, the bulk of research continues to be centered in North America and Europe. Interestingly, though 77 countries are present in the analysis, only 18 countries had 10 or more articles indicating a growing breadth of data but a lack of depth in all but a few countries. Specifically, the lengthy history in North America of federal disability rights legislation, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the United States, may help to explain why almost 51.5% of articles overall still come from the United States alone with only another 6.5% from Canada even when both provide limited national funding for research in this area. Europe continues to have strong representation in the literature with a little over 20% of articles, the majority coming from the United Kingdom (n = 124), Spain (n = 69), and Ireland (n = 27). Conversely, as most education-related journals worldwide are published in English, this finding may well reflect convenience since papers reviewed were only in English.

The maturation of a field can be measured by its movement from describing its reality and challenges, to developing interventions to improve outcomes for marginalized populations. In the case of higher education disability research reviewed herein, the growing number of empirical articles is certainly promising; however, the vast majority of the globe (including the United States) is engaging in non-intervention research. In fact, 90.4% of international studies were non-intervention-related, focusing instead on descriptive, qualitative, or observational research methods. For example, no intervention studies were reported in Latin America (0%) and very few in Oceania (1.9%), and Sub-Saharan Africa (2.6%). While Northern Africa and Western Asia report the highest proportion of intervention studies, they accounted for only 22.4% of empirical studies included in the analysis. Even in the United States only 17.2% of studies were intervention-focused, though the volume of studies may make this percentage misleading in terms of overall intervention development.

Regrettably, the viewpoint of disabilities from a societal perspective frequently focuses on visible disabilities (e.g., blindness, physical disabilities) and disparities in international means of diagnosing hidden disabilities (e.g., dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD]) may compound this reality. Consequently, while the sample of studies included both visible and hidden disabilities, international samples were twice as likely to include visible disabilities (36.9%) compared to the United States (18.6%). Conversely, hidden disabilities were more prevalent in studies from Northern Africa and Western Asia (57.3%) and North America (54.3%). If one believes in the inherent nature of disability to be evenly distributed across the globe, a “hidden disability population” may be bubbling under the surface of higher education outside the United States. Moreover, while not causal, the lack of hidden disabilities included in study populations may signal an alarming missed opportunity to serve students with hidden disabilities in higher education at best, or their complete lack of inclusion at worst.

Analyses using the adapted PASS taxonomy confirm the preponderance of student-focused studies. In the spirit of “nothing about us, without us” and the desire to measure success in the field based on student outcomes, this seems altogether fitting and proper. Within the regional breakdowns, this was particularly true in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (n= 46, 83.6%) and Northern Africa and Western Asia (n = 81, 82.7%). As above, percentages can be misleading as Northern America (n = 665, 77.6%) and Europe (n = 227, 75.2%) continue to conduct exponentially more student-focused studies. United States-based studies also focused on Accessibility Services Staff 1.5 times more frequently, perhaps an indicator of the prolonged history of these programs. That said, examination of fledgling programs, free of historical programming and bureaucracy, are ripe for self-examination and empirical study to ensure the efficacy and efficiency of early design elements.

Studies reporting non-accessibility support staff (e.g., student affairs, university administrators) and faculty continued to be less prevalent in the literature. Non-accessibility support staff were examined almost twice as often (1.89:1) in the United States versus international samples. Alternatively, examination of faculty training and perspectives were twice as likely to come from international studies (12.6%) compared to the United States (6.3%) As noted above, such disparities may reflect the overall size and age of existing programs, with faculty voices receiving examination to provide insight into early inclusive policies and programs, and non-accessibility staff playing larger roles as inclusive efforts become part of the day-to-day business of higher education institutions spanning multiple administrative areas. Regardless, closer examination is necessary to understand these trends. Finally, the continued efficacy of the adapted PASS taxonomy with only seven articles (0.47%) not fitting the taxonomy domains continues to lend evidence in support of the adapted domain structure.

Regarding overall trends in the data, the increase in international research, especially the percentage expansion of countries with data published related to the postsecondary education of individuals with disabilities, signals both the practical importance of this topic for higher education and the scholarly community globally. Countries across the globe exist within a continuum from building brand-new programs to revising mature ones. For example, the lack of intervention and student studies in Latin America and the Caribbean may signal preparation for building new programs designed with faculty and staff readiness as a prerequisite. Similarly, the 12.6% of faculty-focused studies internationally may reflect the critical role faculty play internationally in determining accommodations for students, whereas in the more litigious and due process environment of the United States, this may not be as relevant for moving forward. Though the percentage of non-intervention research remains a critical concern with regard to outcome improvements for individuals with disabilities, and the imbalance of United States-based research (51.5%) limits the overall viewpoint globally, clearly the moment for higher education disability research and service is upon us.

In summary, the 1400% increase in international research publications and strong presence of non-United States research (49.3% of studies) reflects international engagement in the field of higher education and disability. Moreover, contributions from multiple regions, while not equal, does confirm that all corners of the globe are engaged in the expansion of knowledge and service delivery. Thus, the charge of CRPD’s push for inclusive settings and appropriate practices makes the desire for more international research a critical priority moving forward.

4.2. Implications

Accessibility Services Staff. The desire to meet student needs is a critical priority for every accessibility service staff member, regardless of where they serve across the globe. While the majority of the literature reviewed addresses student academic supports, accommodations, and other inclusion efforts, concerns remain about whether or not individuals with visible and hidden disabilities are equally served. Moreover, the limited number of intervention studies may mean that service providers may well be unclear regarding interventions to utilize when matriculating students struggle on higher education campuses. However, as visible disabilities are more prevalent internationally and hidden disabilities are more so in the United States, collaborations among networks of accessibility service staff may help to accelerate best practices, providing immediate improvement in service delivery and giving scholars (more below) time to confirm intervention efficacy. Furthermore, universities might consider participating in research–practice partnerships that can translate research findings into practical strategies for improving student services. Finally, the limited amount of research (especially outside the United States) may serve as a catalyst for staff to advocate for more staff-specific research, lending their critical perspective to systemic solutions globally regarding challenges, professional learning, and expanded program capacity. It is likely that greater collaboration globally, especially across borders and regions, will leverage growing knowledge and experience to develop better practices together.

Implications for Scholars. Though it is clear from study findings that this is a rapidly expanding field, to truly gain momentum, the scholarly community dedicated to higher education disability can be guided by several clear principles to accelerate the knowledge and skills necessary to impact service delivery worldwide and in accordance with the CRPD goals. First, there is a need for greater geographic diversity within the published literature. Without all voices represented, valuable perspectives regarding how different regions implement disability services successfully are likely missing. Scholars in underrepresented areas may benefit from access to current peer-reviewed literature, updated research methods [26], and tools for appropriate analysis as they design studies that will provide critically missing information. Additionally, in areas with a preponderance of student studies, new studies might focus on the perspectives from other domains to promote comprehensive program development.

Second, there is a clear need for experimental, intervention-based studies to surface and validate best practices with utility for postsecondary students with disabilities. Whether related to cognitive strategies for application as learners in university classrooms or social-emotional interventions to support peer interactions, there is enough to accomplish in this area alone to span multiple careers. Consequently, governments, civil society organizations, private foundations and others can spur the production of research by providing capacity in the form of large and small grants to allow sufficient time and resources to develop and examine interventions.

Third, even with the preponderance of studies involving students, the significant underrepresentation of hidden disabilities in international research requires further examination. Scholars might support universities to better understand their own student population, or independently probe the student population for demographic characteristics, including mental health disorders, learning disabilities, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and other invisible disabilities. Furthermore, important insights might be gained from comparing at a global scale the relative effectiveness of services intended for hidden versus visible disabilities. What practices and services benefit both groups? Are there any practices or services that differentially benefit one group over another? Are services for either group missing?

Finally, scholars interested in intervention or service delivery might conduct longitudinal studies to examine the evolution of service programs, following faculty, staff and students over time to determine access, effectiveness, and development of activities, programs, and policies intended to benefit students with disabilities. Furthermore, scholars might examine intended and unintended consequences of activities, programs, and policies for the general university population on students with disabilities. Similarly, macro-scale study of policy impact, especially the CRPD implementation and its role in influencing practice is worthy of study. The study of national or institutional policies that shape disability services and the inclusion of students with disabilities as authentic members of campus in higher education may provide blueprints for other universities as they embark on developing services.

4.3. Limitations

We sought to conduct a comprehensive overview of the literature related to students with disabilities in postsecondary education, yet this synthesis has several notable limitations. First, the scope of the literature reviewed may be constrained. While our goal was to examine all English language-based peer-reviewed literature on postsecondary education for students with disabilities, it is possible the search process does not fully reflect this particular universe of content. Recognizing the uniqueness of each database’s coverage, we utilized multiple search engines to broaden the scope of the review. Next, the review is subject to publication bias since it relies on published works in English, therefore, there may be an overrepresentation of studies reporting positive and/or significant results. Moreover, the review could reflect a language bias as well. To further minimize bias, the publications reflected in the review utilize a variety of study designs and methodologies. Given the goal to limit Western bias, we did not restrict the studies’ global range. Lastly, there is a possibility some relevant articles may have been overlooked due to limitations in search filters and terms, or the databases utilized. As a result, 25% of the articles were double-coded, and any discrepancies were resolved by a third study team member to ensure accuracy in the articles chosen for inclusion in the current review.

5. Conclusions

Overall, the results from this systematic review confirm the current state of research globally on the field of disability in higher education as continuing to expand. Policy initiatives like the CRPD and the growing number of individuals with disabilities attending higher education create conditions for further study by scholars on hidden disabilities and interventions while accessibility service staff seek to develop and implement best practices.