Abstract

In the 11 years since the 2006 publication of the International Writing Center Association's (IWCA) Position Statements on Disability and Diversity, writing center scholars have continued to explore how disability issues intersect with writing center work including the development of accessible web content and interfaces (Hawkes, 2010). Recent studies have found that university websites were ineffectively designed, difficult to navigate, and omitting any representation or acknowledgment of students with disabilities (Gabel et al., 2016; Gabel & Miskovic, 2014; Meyer, 2008; Miskovic & Gabel, 2012). In this study, the primary author and four undergraduate student-researchers study where and how disability support is explicitly articulated on writing center websites from regional Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) and how digital resources have been designed for students with disabilities. Results show that two out of the 35 writing center offices that exist at the 55 universities analyzed have a mission statement that explicitly articulates a support for students with disabilities. Writing center websites also ineffectively incorporate pictures, simple text, simple navigation, and other accessible features (71% of the 35 writing centers analyzed had websites where 21 – 70% of the content is inaccessible). Recommendations to address these problems are provided.


As writing center scholarship expands to include empirical research, the field needs to continue Babcock's 2017 call for increased research on disability in writing center work. In her concluding remarks of her co-edited collection Writing Centers and Disability, Babcock reported that between 2006 and 2016, Online Computer Library Center's (OCLC) Education database showed 656 publications on disability and education compared with 15 articles on disability and writing centers, only eight of which explicitly discussed writing center tutoring and tutoring students with disabilities (p. 331). Babcock's data has shown more research is needed; and the field is aware of its work involving students with varied types of disabilities: in 2006, the International Writing Center Association's (IWCA) (2006a) published its Position Statement on Disability and Writing Centers recommending that writing centers "explicitly consider disability as [they] carry out [their] professional work, including [their] tutorial practice and scholarship." More recently, editor Muriel Harris's opening statements in the May/June 2017 volume of WLN recognized the importance of designing inclusive and accessible physical and digital spaces and tutoring practices for students with disabilities, as have other researchers over the years (Babcock, 2008; Brizee, Sousa, & Driscoll, 2012; Clark & Healy, 1996; Kiedaisch & Dinitz, 2007; Neff, 1994; Olsen & Martinez, 2015; Oswal, 2015). Additionally, data on the types of support for students with disabilities, while limited, were reported in the 2015-2016 International Writing Centers Research Project where disability services provided are referenced 10 times. Of the 168 responses regarding types of services provided, two writing centers explicitly stated they provided assistive technology support or writing help for students with disabilities (p. 26).

Despite the field's awareness, little research has been published on how to effectively design accessible writing center websites and digital resources for students with disabilities. In this article, we report on and analyze the current state of accessible resources and interfaces and argue that the design and maintenance of these digital texts should be considered integral to writing center work. In its Position Statement on Disability, IWCA (2006a) has provided a preliminary framework to accommodate students with disabilities. Specifically, writing centers should "take positive steps to ensure that our physical and virtual layouts and materials such as handouts are welcoming and accessible – not merely legally acceptable, but thoughtfully, accommodatingly, and graciously accessible." The Conference on College Composition and Communication's (CCCC) 2013 Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction reinforces the IWCA position statement with its first principle: "Online writing instruction should be universally inclusive and accessible." Despite the direction provided by these position statements, limited research exists regarding the development of accessible web content, such as writing resources, and writing center websites/interfaces (Bruyere, 2008; Hawkes, 2010; Mohr, 1998; Oswal, 2015). In response to the gap in literature, we ask where and how is disability support explicitly articulated on writing center websites, and how have digital resources been designed for students with disabilities? As we will discuss later in this paper, our – the primary author and four student team members – perceptions and approaches were impacted by our personal stake in this project. Each of us has personally experienced or lived with a relative who has been diagnosed with a disability. Furthermore, three of the student team members worked at the university writing center and were familiar with the limited resources available to the current director for maintaining the writing center website and digital resources. Because of these connections and the gap in recent research, we identified the need for this study, as well as the opportunity to encourage institutional change that could improve the support, accessibility, and representation of disability on writing center websites.

Literature Review

U.S. Higher Education Websites and Accessibility

In a study of 40 university homepages, Meyer (2008) concluded that while universities had adopted an online approach to directing students to campus services, home page design was messy and the interface difficult to navigate for the inexperienced user. Inaccessibility is problematic because a university website is the institution's "virtual face" and represents its priorities (Meyer, 2008; Wilson & Meyer, 2009). Similarly, a writing center's website provides a virtual face to students seeking writing support. Inaccessible writing center websites and lack of statements regarding disability support misrepresent the field's priorities and commitment to students with disabilities. The number of students with disabilities pursuing higher education continues to increase (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009; Gabel, Reid, Pearson, Ruiz, & Hume-Dawson, 2016). According to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2016), 11% of undergraduates are disabled. With 2014 undergraduate enrollment reaching 17.3 million, this means there were nearly 2 million enrolled students with disabilities with a wide range of characteristics across social groups. For example, a proportionately higher number of students with disabilities are veterans (21%) than non-veterans (11%). There is also a greater number age 30 and older (16%), followed by ages 24 to 29 (11%), and finally ages 15 to 23 (9%). As for race/ethnicity, there are some striking differences in the percentage having a disability: Pacific Islander (15%), American Indian/Alaska Native (14%), Two or more races (14%), Black (12%), White (11%), Hispanic (10%), and Asian (8%). Because undergraduate enrollment, including enrollment of students with disabilities, is projected to increase, writing centers have an interest in meeting the diverse needs of students with disabilities who could potentially visit their websites, use their support, and whose enrollment numbers each year edge closer to a quarter of the entire student population.

The problem, according to Gabel et al. (2016), is that "disabled students are often invisible on college campuses, in part because many do not self-identify as disabled by contacting the campus disability services office" (p. 65). Through their review of related literature, Gabel et al. found that less than 1% of students in 4-year Californian IHEs (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2009, as cited in Gabel et al., p.66), as well as in a regional university in the Midwest, identify as disabled (Gabel & Miskovic, 2014; Miskovic & Gabel, 2012). Moreover, even when a student did identify as disabled, they remained invisible in and inadvertently absent from digital institutional discourse, such as websites and student academic support resources (i.e. writing center digital resources). When more disabled students enroll in IHEs yet remain forgotten, this creates a disability paradox (Gabel et al., 2016). Because of this, in this study we ask what this lack of representation suggests about the reception and support provided to students with disabilities in IHEs generally, as Gabel et al. explored, and writing centers specifically (the focus of our research).

Definitions and Models of Disability

The challenge of representing and providing support to a diverse population of students with disabilities lies in the myriad, multidimensional and often contradictory aspects about definitions and models of disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and ADA Amendments Act (ADAA) of 2008 has defined disability as a physical or mental impairment that "significantly restrict[s]" and "substantially limits" and impacts "major life activit[ies]" (U.S. Congress, 1990; U.S. Congress, 2008). While this definition provides a legal framework that then informs protective measures at the legislative and employment levels, we did not adopt the ADA's language for our research because the language framed disability from an able-bodied perspective. Disability is lacking ability of the normal able-bodied majority. The U.S. Department of Education NCES (2016), has elaborated by defining disabled students as having one or more medical conditions: "a specific learning disability, a visual impairment, hard of hearing, deafness, a speech impairment, an orthopedic impairment, or a health impairment." The NCES' definition focused on the medical deficits of those who have been diagnosed as disabled. Granted, it provided added detail, but it did not capture the broader implications of being citizens, people with disabilities in the United States, and specifically within institutions such as Higher Education. As such, we did not adopt the NCES definition. The IWCA (2006a) Position Statement on Disability and Writing Centers has defined disability using a 2004 Frequently Asked Questions resource from the United Nations and World Health Assembly, which defined disability as "Any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being." The World Health Organization (WHO) (2017) has affirmed that disability involves physical impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. WHO framed disability using a social model and stated that disability is a "complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person's body and features of the society in which he or she lives." While we do agree that social barriers exist and must be eliminated, in this study we adopt the human rights approach developed by the United Nations (UN) (2015) because it frames disability as one of many examples of "human diversity." With a human rights approach, there is no longer an "us," the able bodied, and "them," the disabled. There is only one group. All persons are "rights-holders," and the human rights approach to disability "promotes respect for their inherent dignity" (UN) while also addressing disabling social conditions. A human rights approach helped us identify the context of the disabling conditions of writing center websites so that the field and IHEs may focus on developing strategies to promote and respect the inherent dignity of all students.

Writing Centers, Disability, and Institutional Discourse

Disability studies continue to remain at the center or forefront of writing center narratives, lore, and empirical research (Babcock, 2017, p. 329). Inquiry has revolved around accessible online writing labs and instruction (Brizee, Sousa, & Driscoll, 2012; Olsen & Martinez, 2015; Mohr, 1998; Oswal, 2015; Ries, 2015; Wilson, 2017), disability and tutoring practices (Babcock, 2008; Cherney, 2017, Kiedaisch & Dinitz, 2007; Neff, 1994), and accessible policies and practices (Babcock, 2015; Degner, Wojciehowski, & Giroux, 2015; Elston, 2015; Grutsch McKinney, 2013).

While much has been written about creating accessible spaces and resources, as well as inclusive policies and practices, very little has been written about writing center websites as an extension of institutional discourse barriers. By institution, we mean the covertly enduring constraints of "exert[ed] pattern[s] [through] higher-order effects on the actions … of individuals and organizations without requiring repeated collective mobilization or authoritative intervention to achieve these regularities" (Clemens & Cook, 1999, p. 445). The content, design, and infrastructure of a website are all forms of institutional discourse. As a form of institutional discourse, then, writing center websites circulate, sustain, and reinforce the meaning (the ways we think, talk, write, and act toward people – people with disabilities for this study) thereby creating a dominant discourse. By analyzing writing center websites, as Fairclough (1995) has suggested, through three elements of communicative events – the text, the discursive practices, and the social and cultural structures and relations – scholars can begin "to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony" (p. 135). Any discourse less powerful is marginalized, often misunderstood, and completely ignored or overlooked. For this reason, the discourse of digital texts needs to be analyzed for what they include as well as what they omit because "the absence of something creates meaning, as does its presence" (Gabel et al., 2016, p. 67).

Confusing navigation and interfaces, inaccessible texts and images, absent explicit language indicating support for individuals with disabilities – these website attributes indicate audience segmentation and assumptions about visitors' needs and characteristics (Meyer, 2008, p. 143). Inaccessible writing center website design frames an assumed identity for the visitor and their needs and leads to the acceptance of one meaning over another: namely, that anyone accessing the website is not disabled and that the material needs of visitors with disabilities were not explicitly considered when creating the center's virtual face. The website becomes a textual artifact, then, a tradition (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996) of ableism, reinforcing normalizing discourses and material social inequalities. In this way, it silences oppositional voices as a form of containment and imposes a linguistic spiral of silence and "isolation offer[ing] protective features that soften risk to the speaker" (Gabel et al., 2016, p. 67). Through containment, a writing center website "determines who can speak and act and what can be said or done" (p. 67). Paraphrasing Gabel and Miskovic (2014), when a writing center website ignores something, "remains silent about or unresponsive to something," such as the material needs of students with disabilities, this serves as a way to "mask the more fractious discourse of deficits, abnormality, and exclusion" (p. 1147). Furthermore, writing center websites have the ability to open and close doors to students with disabilities (Bruyere, 2008). For example, when writing related materials, resources, and information are posted to the university office's website yet are inaccessible, it "can pose significant barriers to people who are visually impaired or deaf or have learning disabilities. Sites that fail to meet accessibility guidelines increase the potential for inadvertent discrimination against these students" (Bruyere, p. 37).

Critical analysis and inquiry of writing centers' digital face is necessary. Inaccessible websites and materials, as well as little representation or acknowledgement (by way of the mission statement) of the diverse student body ("abled" and "disabled"), highlight the broader problem of inclusiveness within university writing center discourse. Grutsch McKinney (2013) warned about the writing center grand narrative in which there is "cognitive dissonance between the work we do and the work we talk about" (p.4), as well as the way we talk about that work. That discourse creates a writing center akin to a "cozy home" that makes administrators and consultants feel good because the center is "anti-academic, anti-establishment, caring, and iconoclastic" (p.25). The writing center mission statement, then, becomes an extension of this discourse. What we claim and what we achieve do not overlap. Rendleman (2012) urged the field to critically analyze and reflect upon the lexicon of each word in writing center mission statements. Rendleman found that analysis of these words leads to defining, and "definition offers a reference to things in the real world, emotive associations, sense relation, and words found in collocation among the corpora" (p.4). The definition informs practice and perception – from consultants to students seeking writing support. Even the term "writing center" results in contradictory and "pieced together semantics" (Simpson, 2010, p.1). Just as mission statements fall short of capturing the work done at the writing center, they also point to the need for increased inclusivity.

Methodology

Procedures

This study took place over four months from September to December 2017 and then rechecked from June to August 2018 as part of an extended project in an upper level course in the Professional Writing and Rhetoric Undergraduate Program. Our – the primary author and four student team members – perceptions and approaches were impacted by our personal stake in the support, accessibility, and representation of disability on writing center websites. The primary author lives with chronic illness and disability and researches accessibility in technical and health communications. Of the four student team members, half had experienced some form of permanent or temporary disability and knew someone in their immediate or extended family who lived with a disability. All four students knew someone outside of their family who lived with a disability. Additionally, three of the students worked at the university writing center and were familiar with the limited resources available to the current director for maintaining the writing center website and digital resources.

Our information sources were the comparison institutions used by our university, McKendree University, and consisted of similar IPEDS, Local Private, Great Lakes, and Carnegie Classifications — Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger programs (M1) (see Appendix for a complete list). The project's purpose was twofold:

  1. to analyze whether and how the writing centers articulated support for individuals with disabilities; and
  2. to identify and discuss the accessibility of content, design, and navigation for individuals with disabilities, including visual representation of these students.

In this study our primary question was what does website content, presentation/design, and navigation say about the 55 university writing centers' priorities regarding disability and providing support to students with disabilities? We chose these specific universities because the amount provided a manageable, convenient amount of data. Additionally, these universities shared similar characteristics with ours, such as amount and type of degrees and programs offered; smaller enrollment sizes; student demographics; student support services, such as writing centers; and potential and actual material resources that could be invested to support a writing center's physical and digital space. Because our initial question stemmed from our observations and concerns regarding our writing center's website (as well as how to improve our writing center's digital resources), these specific institutions seemed a logical choice and fair comparison because, at the broader university level, administrators also collected comparison data about the same universities. Finally, the large number of students potentially accessing these university websites suggest the importance of studying this type of discourse to unearth underlying meanings and to identify unconscious messages related to disability and normalcy.

Data Collection Strategies

To evaluate whether (and, then, how) a writing center website articulated support, as well as the accessibility of the websites, we used three assessment tools.

"Snapshot Click" assessment

We began with Astroff's (2001), Wilson and Meyer's (2010), and Gabel et al.'s (2016) use of the "snapshot click" assessment approach to analyze the ease with which it is to locate information related to support for individuals with disabilities, as well as representation of disability in images used. If we could not locate disability support information on the homepage of each writing center's website, we continued looking on secondary and tertiary web content. We categorized coverage information as "found," "found in less than four clicks" (<4), "not found within a reasonable amount of time" (4+ clicks), "not found without a keyword search," or "not found." Each team member was assigned to a group of university websites to assess, and then during our weekly team meetings, we discussed their findings. A second team member then analyzed the same set of websites and checked the accuracy of the first team member's results. We then met to discuss and resolve disagreements until we reached agreement. The words used to identify the disability support included "disability" and "disable" – common words used by the NCES and ADA and often used by Disability Services Office websites. Few writing center websites included explicit mission statements of support for students with disabilities, so textual analysis was limited and will be discussed in greater detail later.

Kennedy, Evans, and Thomas' accessible website assessment

Similar to the "snapshot click" assessment sessions, each team member analyzed the same group of websites using Kennedy, Evans, and Thomas' (2011) accessible design characteristic for individuals with intellectual disabilities in which websites must:

  1. Include pictures that provide key information and repeat the information provided in text.
  2. Have simple navigation, with just a few choices, rather than navigation with lots of choices.
  3. Incorporate movement and interaction to generate interest: video, animation and sound.
  4. Use voicing to narrate text on the page.
  5. Use simple, easy-to-read text and short sentences. (p. 33)

According to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) (2018), an intellectual disability is "a disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior, which covers many everyday social and practical skills" and originates before the age of 18. Intelligent quotient (IQ) scores of 70 up to 75 indicate a limitation in intellectual functioning. Kennedy, et al. (2011) warn that "IQ does not reveal much about an individual's practical capabilities and support requirements, so current approaches focus on an individual's adaptive behavior, life skills, and social and physical abilities" (p. 30). An individual with an intellectual disability will live with behaviors, skills, and abilities that range in "severity, including mild, moderate, severe, and profound." We selected the Kennedy et al. metric because the authors developed the four design characteristics based on empirical research and usability testing.

Section 508 Guidelines assessment

Finally, we manually evaluated writing center websites for accessibility using the U.S. federal government's Section 508 Guidelines. Again, we would discuss findings during our team meetings, followed by a second team member analyzing another team member's websites for accuracy. Any disagreements were then resolved in follow-up meetings. All data and analysis created by team members and during team meetings were collected, analyzed, and then converted to tables by the primary author. Accessibility results were then checked through cross-analysis using WAVE v4.0, an open source, browser-based accessibility and 508 compliance evaluation tool developed by WebAIM and recommended by the U.S. General Services Administration. While no software program or algorithm can determine if content is truly accessible, it can identify certain features and determine whether they meet federal guidelines. For example, WAVE v4.0 can detect errors in color contrast and missing alt tags with images, as well as underlying reading and navigation order – features that keyboard-only and screen reader users use and follow to access content on the page.

Results

Snapshot Click Assessment

Of the 55 universities evaluated, 35 had established writing center offices (see Table 1). Twenty of those were independent offices (identified as WC), and fifteen were writing center offices housed in a larger student success/support office (identified as WCA-SS). Two university writing center offices, both located in a larger student success office, explicitly articulated a statement regarding support for students with disabilities: Bellarmine University and Vanguard University. These statements were found in less than 4 clicks. One other university, Illinois Wesleyan, included a statement about referrals for students with disabilities. We will discuss these universities' mission statements later in the Textual Analysis sub-section of this Results section.

Table 1
Snapshot Click Assessment Results by Type of Institution and Writing Center Office
Type of Writing Center Office
Institution Type and AmountWCWCA-SSDisability Statement, Representation
Great Lakes
(N =15)
351
(< 4 clicks)
Carnegie
(N = 14)
531
(< 4 clicks)
IPEDS
(N = 14)
46Not found
Local Private
(N = 12)
81Not found
Total
(N = 55)
20152

Kennedy, Evans, and Thomas' (2011) Accessible Website Design Assessment

After analyzing the 35 writing center websites using Kennedy, Evans, and Thomas' (2011) four characteristics of accessible website design, we found that none of the websites incorporated movement or interaction to generate interest, nor did they use voicing to narrate the text (see Table 2). University writing center offices were relatively successful at using simple navigation and easy-to-read text and short sentences (see Table 3). Simple navigation "shorten[s] the number of links to get to get to important information" (Meyer, 2008, p.156) that offer "just a few choices, rather than navigation with lots of choices" (Kennedy, Evans, & Thomas, 2011, p.33). Using Astroff's (2001), Wilson and Meyer's (2010), and Gabel et al.'s (2016) use of the "snapshot click," helped us determine how easy or difficult it might be to locate important information, such as the mission statement. Information found in 4 clicks or less indicate simple navigation. All 35 writing centers' websites attempted to use simple navigation, simple text, and short sentences. Of those who attempted simple navigation, 29% did so ineffectively; of those who attempted simple, easy-to-read text with short sentences, 34% did so ineffectively. Writing centers were less successful at incorporating pictures/visuals in meaningful ways (see Table 3). Less than 50% attempted to include images and 71% of those attempts were ineffective because the pictures were poorly designed and/or did not add any meaningful information, reinforce the text, or include alt tags for screen readers.

Table 2
Writing Center Website Design Assessment Results by Accessible Design Characteristics
Institution TypeAccessible PicturesSimple navigationSimple text & short sentencesVoice narration
EffectiveIneffectiveEffectiveIneffectiveEffectiveIneffective
Great Lakes
(N = 8)
215362Not used
Carnegie
(N = 8)
034453Not used
IPEDS
(N =10)
127373Not used
Local Private
(N = 9)
149054Not used
Table 3
Total Attempts and Ineffective Attempts at Accessible Writing Center Website Design by Characteristics
Accessible PicturesSimple NavigationSimple Text, Short Sentences
AttemptedIneffectiveAttemptedIneffectiveAttemptedIneffective
Amount of Writing Centers171235103512
Total
(N = 35)
49%71%100%29%100%34%

Section 508 Compliance Assessment

Overall, writing center websites are accessible according to Section 508 Guidelines. After analyzing websites using the 508 Guidelines as a checklist, we checked for accuracy using WAVE v4.0. This evaluation tool analyzed six general website features: accessible errors that need to be fixed, general alerts, contrast errors, accessible features, accessible structural elements, and accessible HTML5 and Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA), which is a set of attributes that help make web content and applications, such as JavaScript, more accessible for those with disabilities. Aggregated data from each comparison university cohort emphasize the amount and percentages of accessible and inaccessible content (see Table 4). For example, 43% of content was inaccessible on writing center websites in the Local Private cohort, while 14% was inaccessible in the Carnegie classification. The average amount of inaccessible content across all cohort websites was 25%. This means a quarter of all information on writing center websites was difficult to navigate and access by students with disabilities.

Table 4
WAVE v4.0 Assessment Results by Number of Inaccessible Alerts and Accessible Features of Writing Center Office Institution Type
Institution TypeTotal Inaccessible AlertsTotal Accessible FeaturesTotal Alerts & FeaturesAmount of Inaccessible Content (%)
Great Lakes25241967138%
Carnegie3161954227014%
IPEDS6552403305821%
Local Private671899157043%
Grand Total18945675756925%

When analyzed at the institution and cohort levels, however, the amount of writing center websites with inaccessible content more clearly highlights the difficulties students with disabilities will experience when attempting to navigate and access information (see Table 5). Of the 35 writing center websites analyzed, 40% of the offices had websites wherein 31 – 40% of the content was inaccessible. Roughly 21 – 30% of website content was inaccessible on 17% of the writing center websites. Only one writing center – Illinois College – had a website where 100% of content was accessible. Nine percent of writing center websites contained content of which 41-50% was inaccessible. The amount of inaccessible content on two websites – Drury University and Hope College – reached between 61-70%. The data show that, depending on the website, a student with a disability will be unable to access anywhere from 1 – 70% of the content. As such, those students won't be able to determine whether the inaccessible content is important or requires extra effort to seek out. What amount of inaccessible website content is acceptable? Even if writing centers agree the highest amount of inaccessible content should not exceed 20%, our data show 71% of the 35 writing centers analyzed had websites where 21 – 70% of the content is inaccessible.

Table 5
WAVE v4.0 Assessment Results by Number of Writing Centers with Inaccessible Website Content and Amount of Inaccessible Content
Institution TypePercent of Inaccessible Content
0%1-10%11-20%21-30%31-40%41-50%51-60%61-70%
Great Lakes
(N = 8)
00033101
Carnegie
(N = 8)
03302000
IPEDS
(N =10)
11106100
Local Private
(N = 9)
01033101
Total
(N = 35)
154614302
Total
(% of N)
3%14%11%17%40%9%0%6%

Textual Analysis of Mission Statements

As discussed earlier, two university writing center offices, both located in a larger student success office, explicitly articulated a statement regarding support for students with disabilities: Bellarmine University and Vanguard University. Illinois Wesleyan writing center website also discussed referrals. No other university's writing center website provided a mission statement at the time that also explicitly articulated some type of acknowledgement or support for students with disabilities. Consider Bellarmine's and Vanguard's mission statements (below).

Bellarmine University Writing Center's Statement:

The Writing Center is dedicated to promoting and supporting research in writing and writing pedagogy. We provide a site for ongoing research as well as encouraging engagement in writing research among our undergraduate and graduate staff. The Writing Center acknowledges the integral relationships between literacy education and the democratization of higher education. We are committed both to our role in increasing access to that education for all students and to the development, practice, and evolution of anti-oppression pedagogies. We are committed to cultivating a broad-based recognition of the value of World Englishes to both intellectual and public discourse. We ally with and advocate for writers from historically marginalized or oppressed groups and for writing that counters traditional accounts of "standard" academic English by extending conceptions of audience, purpose, and meaning. (Emphasis added)

Vanguard University Writing Center's Statement:

The Writing Center is committed to assisting students from all disciplines in a collaborative, Christ-centered environment, and we value students' learning differences and diverse voices. (Emphasis added)

While Bellarmine's and Vanguard's mission statements did not explicitly use words such as "disability" or "disabled," their language acknowledges the social construction of disability. Bellarmine does so by using language focusing on the "democratization of higher education" and "anti-oppression pedagogies." By advocating for "marginalized or oppressed groups," which include students with disabilities, Bellarmine's writing center mission statement – and by extension, virtual face – espouse an institutional discourse that aligns with the human rights model of disability. Vanguard's mission and virtual face also reaffirm this by using language that places value on "learning differences" and "diverse learners."

Finally, while some universities, such as Illinois Wesleyan, did acknowledge the needs of students with disabilities by including statements in their policies that indicate students will be referred to Disability Services when "deemed appropriate" or providing writing support for diverse learners, no other writing center offices' websites explicitly included such intentional or deliberate language in their mission statements or elsewhere on their website when compared to the explicit language we searched for and found on Bellarmine's and Vanguard's writing center websites. Furthermore, none incorporated images that represented disability or insinuated anything other than able-bodied students using the writing center's services.

Discussion

As multimodal texts, websites combine the "multiple different ways of communicating" in digital environments (Arola, Sheppard, & Ball, 2014). While the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and specifically the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) provide the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 – a global resource and framework for developing accessible websites (Caldwell, Cooper, Reid, & Vanderheiden, 2008), the established web content standards are voluntary. Much of the federal Section 508 Guidelines are based on those voluntary standards and do not fundamentally challenge or change normative discourses of ableist website design approaches. Studies show university websites are inaccessible because of complex navigation structures, hidden or missing content, and other barriers (Astroff, 2001; Kennedy, Evans, & Thomas, 2011; Gabel, Reid, Pearson, Ruiz, & Hume-Dawson, 2016). Our research of writing center website design also confirms the findings of those studies. Writing center websites fail to consistently incorporate headings, images, or alt tags, or effective use of simple, easy-to-read text and short sentences. Students with disabilities visiting the websites would find nearly 32% of writing center websites consist of complex design and content. Furthermore, students with disabilities wouldn't be able to access 14 – 70% of content depending on the university.

Language and the use of language in social contexts, such as websites, produce identity (Gee, 1990) and influence agency. As such, these authoritative texts also produce meaning, have power, and reinforce "social categories" while also shaping perceptions and behaviors (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004, p. 638). Institutions, then, maintain covertly enduring constraints through the textual and visual design of the organization's website. When understood as an active, contributing member of an institution and its discourse, writing centers and specifically their websites and mission statements are able to produce the identities of people accessing the digital content. As a form of institutional discourse, websites circulate, sustain, and reinforce the ways people think, talk, write, and act toward people with disabilities. Mission statements identify the intended audience; when the language used omits or vaguely identifies the individuals who can be helped or supported, the text marginalizes and perpetuates discrimination of people with disabilities. This marginalization and discrimination become a tradition (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996) of ableism, normalizing discourses, and material social inequalities for people with disabilities. The less powerful discourse of disability is then marginalized, misunderstood, ignored, and overlooked. For example, recent studies, although few, find that people in the U.S. with intellectual and developmental disabilities are far less likely to own a computer and even fewer have access to and use of the Internet (Chadwick, Wesson, & Fullwood, 2013). The resulting digital divide creates a marginalized group of inexperienced technology users (university students with disabilities for our study) despite the increased use of ever more sophisticated technologies (Sorbring, Molin, & Löfgren-Mårtenson, 2017). As the number of students with disabilities continues to increase, universities and, specifically, writing centers must pay attention to the design and content of their virtual face. In fact, writing centers are positioned to address the systemic problem of disabling institutional discourse of inaccessible website design by revising the content, accessibility, and usability of their websites and resources.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In this study, we evaluated writing center websites to determine the extent of accessible design features of web pages and resources, as well as the ways in which support for students with disabilities were explicitly articulated. Our findings showed that 40% of the offices had websites wherein 31 – 40% of the content was inaccessible; 9% of websites contained content of which 41 – 50% was inaccessible. While accessibility standards are designed to address these design and content issues, Pass (2013) warns that "Section 508 is not enough [and] WAI [WCAG 2.0] is impossible to achieve … WAI covers so many possible technologies that to meet every guideline the web designer would never be finished" (p. 121). Additionally, writing centers may be constrained by the material resources and support from their university for web and technology support.

Brizee, Sousa, and Driscoll (2012) strongly urged the use of "informed user-centered and participatory design" when composing writing center "programs and materials that are universally acceptable" (p.3), such as the Purdue OWL – the online resource they assessed for accessibility. In the same way, we recommend future research that would involve usability testing of writing center websites. Accessibility and representation both could be addressed, and Brizee, Sousa, and Driscoll provide relevant and effective strategies that could be used to assess writing center website accessibility for a broad range of visitors from students to faculty and staff. Students and faculty, as well as writing center administrators and tutors, are also well-positioned to assist writing centers in designing websites and resources for individuals with disabilities so that they benefit all individuals and expand well-integrated design dimensions to account for the ways a diverse group of users ("abled" and "disabled") will think and act when using a writing center website.

As to whether and how writing centers articulate support, especially via their mission statements, only two of the writing centers explicitly articulated a mission statement regarding support for students with disabilities. Certain academic fields such Technical and Professional Writing, Marketing, and Graphic Design are fertile ground to interrogate further the recursive relationship between disability and website design. More so, students within these fields can learn to analyze how texts affect users with disabilities when produced in a "discursive process of normalization: legitimating and subjugating knowledges, examining and controlling workplace practices, forming subjectivities, and marking bodies as normal or deviant" (Palmeri, 2006, p.49). An obligation exists, then, to act as agents of social change (Rude, 2009).

The writing center grand narrative is the field's "rhetorical habit, and it shapes our visual habits" (Grutsch McKinney, 2013, p.89). The most visual is the center's website where a tunnel vision of the students served creates a barrier to inclusivity and support. More so, the mission statement, through omission, excludes a growing population of students – those with disabilities. As Simpson (2010) emphasized, "perceptions matter" (p.4), most importantly – our students' perceptions. Rather than pushing students with disabilities to the periphery, writing centers can rewrite the institutional discourse by focusing on inclusive website design and acknowledging and representing diverse student populations through the mission statement. By making these changes and cultivating a discourse of inclusion, writing centers will also become agents of change in higher education.

References

  • American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD). (2018). Intellectual disability: Definition of intellectual disability. Retrieved from http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition.
  • Arolla, K. L., Sheppard, J., & Ball, C. E. (2014). Writer/Designer: A guide to making multimodal projects. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
  • Astroff, R. (2001). Searching for the library: University home page design and missing links. Information Technology and Libraries, 20, 93–99.
  • Babcock, R.D. (2008). Tutoring deaf college students in the writing center. In C. Lewiecki-Wilson, B. J. Brueggemann, & J. Dolmage (Eds.), Disability and the teaching of writing: A critical sourcebook (pp. 28–39). Boston, MA: Bedford.
  • Babcock, R. D. (2015). Disabilities in the writing center. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 13(1), 39-50. Retrieve from http://www.praxisuwc.com/babcock-131/.
  • Babcock, R. D. & Daniels, S. (Eds.) (2017). Writing centers and disability. Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.
  • Brizee, A., Sousa, M., & Driscoll, D.L. (2012). Writing centers and students with disabilities: The user-centered approach, participatory design, and empirical research as collaborative methodologies. Computers and Composition, 29(4), 341-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.10.003
  • Bruyere, S. (2008). Total access: Making college web sites accessible to students with disabilities. Community College Journal, 79(1), 36-39.
  • Caldwell, B., Cooper, M, Reid, L. G., & Vanderheiden, G. (2008). W3C Recommendation: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
  • Chadwick, D., Wesson, C., & Fullwood, C. (2013). Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities: Inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet, 5 (3), 376-397. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi5030376
  • Cherney, K. (2017). Inclusion for the "isolated": An exploration of writing tutoring strategies for students with ASD. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 14(3), 49-55. Retrieved from http://www.praxisuwc.com/kristeen-cherney-143),
  • Clark, I., & Healy, D. (1996). Are writing centers ethical? WPA, 20(1-/2), 32-48.
  • Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441
  • Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). (2013). Position statement of principles and example effective practices for online writing instruction (OWI). Retrieved from http://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/owiprinciples.
  • Degner, H., Wojciehowski, K., & Giroux, C. (2015). Opening closed doors: A Rationale for creating a safe space for tutors struggling with mental health concerns or illness. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 13(1), 27-37. Retrieve from http://www.praxisuwc.com/131-journal-page.
  • Elston, M. M. (2015). Psychological disability and the director's chair: Interrogating the relationship between positionality and pedagogy. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 13(1), 14-19. Retrieve from http://www.praxisuwc.com/131-journal-page.
  • Fairclough, N. L. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, UK: Longman.
  • Fairhurst, G. & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of Framing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Gabel, S.L., & Miskovic, M. (2014). Discourse and the containment of disability in higher education: an institutional analysis. Disability & Society, 29(7), 1145-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.910109
  • Gabel, S. L., Reid, D., Pearson, H., Ruiz, L., & Hume-Dawson, R. (2016). Disability and diversity on CSU websites: A critical discourse study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039256
  • Grutsch McKinney, J. (2013). Peripheral visions for writing centers. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt4cgk97
  • Harris, M. (2017). From the editor. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 41(9-10), 1.
  • Hawkes, L. (2010). When compassion isn't enough: Providing fair and equivalent access to writing help for students with disabilities. In C. Murphy & B. L. Stay (Eds.), The writing center director's resource book (pp. 371-377), New York, NY: Routledge.
  • International Writing Center Association (IWCA). (2006a). Position statement on disability and writing centers. Retrieved from http://writingcenters.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/disabilitiesstatement1.pdf.
  • International Writing Center Association (IWCA). (2006b). Diversity initiative. Retrieved from http://writingcenters.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/iwca_diversity_initiative1.pdf.
  • International Writing Centers Research Project (IWCRP). (2016). International Writing Centers Research Project: Initial report. Retrieved from http://iwcrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IWCRP-Report-PDF.pdf.
  • Kiedaisch, J., & Dinitz, S. (2007). Changing notions of difference in the writing center: The possibilities of universal design. The Writing Center Journal, 27(2), 2007, 39–59.
  • Meyer, K. (2008). The "virtual face" of institutions: What do home pages reveal about higher education?. Innovative Higher Education, 33(3), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9071-2
  • Miskovic, M., & Gabel, S. (2012). When numbers don't add up and words can't explain: Challenges in defining disability in higher education. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.233
  • Mohr, E. (1998). The community college mission and the electronic writing center. In Hobson (Ed.), Wiring the writing center. U of Press of Colorado, Utah State U Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nzf8.14
  • Neff, J. (1994). Learning disabilities and the writing center. In Mullin & Wallace (Eds.), Intersections: Theory and practice in the writing center. Urbana: NCTE, 81-95.
  • Olsen, L., & Martinez, D. (2015). Online writing labs. In B.L. Hewett and K.E. DePew (Eds.). (2015). Foundational practices of online writing instruction. Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press, 183-210. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/owi/.
  • Oswal, S. (2015). Physical and learning disabilities in OWI. In B.L. Hewett and K.E. DePew (Eds.). (2015). Foundational practices of online writing instruction. Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press, 253-289. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/owi/.
  • Palmeri, J. (2006). Disability studies, cultural analysis, and the critical practice of technical communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1501_5
  • Pass, E. (2013). Accessibility and the web design student. In L. Meloncon (Ed.), Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies (pp. 115–134). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
  • Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B. and Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29, 635–52. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.14497617
  • Rendleman, E. (2012). Lexicography: Self-analysis and defining the keywords of our missions. The Writing Lab Newsletter, 37(1), 1-5.
  • Ries, S. (2015). The online writing center: Reaching out to students with disabilities. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 13(1), 4-5. Retrieved from http://www.praxisuwc.com/131-journal-page.
  • Rude, C. D. (2009). Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(2), 174 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651908329562
  • Simpson, J. (2010). Whose idea of a writing center is this, anyway? The Writing Lab Newsletter, 35(1), 1-4.
  • Sorbring, E., Molin, M., & Löfgren-Mårtenson, L. (2017). "I'm a mother, but I'm also a facilitator in her every-day life": Parents' voices about barriers and support for internet participation among young people with intellectual disabilities. Cyberpsychology, 11(1), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-1-3
  • United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (2015). Module 1: What is disability? [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/Issues/Disability/CRPDTool/Module1_WhatDisability.pptx&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1.
  • U.S. Congress. (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Sec. 3. 2, A-C. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ada.html.
  • U.S. Congress. (2008). ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Sec. 2. B. 3., Sec. 4. A. 1., 2., and 3. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa.cfm.
  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Fast facts: Students with disabilities. Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (2016-014), [Chapter 3]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60.
  • U. S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Higher education and disability: Education needs a coordinated approach to improve its assistance to schools in supporting students. Washington, DC: GAO. Retrieved http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-33.
  • Wilson, J. L., & Meyer, K. A. (2009). Higher education websites: The 'virtual face' of diversity. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(2), 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015443
  • World Health Organization. (2017). Health topics: Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/.

Appendix

List of Universities Analyzed
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS)Local Private InstitutionsGreat Lakes Valley ConferenceCarnegie Classification Schools
Alverno College, WI
https://www.alverno.edu/
Belmont University, TN
http://www.belmont.edu/
Bellarmine University, KY
http://www.bellarmine.edu/
Benedict College SC
http://www.benedict.edu/
Bethel College, IN
https://www.bethelcollege.edu/
Indiana Wesleyan, IN
https://www.indwes.edu/
Drury University, MO
http://www.drury.edu/
Buena Vista University IA
http://www.bvu.edu/
Bluffton University, OH
http://www.bluffton.edu/
Millikin University, IL
https://millikin.edu/
Kentucky Wesleyan College, KY
https://kwc.edu/
Shaw University NC
http://www.shawu.edu/
Calumet College of St. Joseph, IN
https://www.ccsj.edu/
Olivet Nazarene, IL
http://www.olivet.edu/
Lewis University, IL
http://www.lewisu.edu/
Southeastern University FL
http://www.seu.edu/
Carroll College, WI
http://www.carrollu.edu/
Spring Arbor University, MI
https://www.arbor.edu/
Maryville University of Saint Louis, MOStevenson University MD
http://www.stevenson.edu/
Elmhurst College, IL
http://www.elmhurst.edu/
Carleton College, MN
https://www.carleton.edu/
Missouri University of Science and Technology, MO
http://www.mst.edu/
Tuskegee University AL
https://www.tuskegee.edu/
Franklin College, IN
http://franklincollege.edu/
Hillsdale College, MI
https://www.hillsdale.edu/
Quincy University, IL
http://www.quincy.edu/
Vanguard University CA
https://www.vanguard.edu/
Illinois College
http://www.ic.edu/RelId/33637/ISvars/default/Home.htm
Hope College, MI
https://hope.edu/
Rockhurst University, MO
https://www.rockhurst.com/
Champlain College VT
https://www.champlain.edu/
Manchester College, IN
http://www.manchester.edu/
Illinois Wesleyan, IL
https://www.iwu.edu/
Saint Joseph's College, IN
http://www.saintjoe.edu/
Faulkner University AL
https://www.faulkner.edu/
Millikin University, IL
https://millikin.edu/
Knox College, IL
https://www.knox.edu/
University of Illinois at Springfield, IL
http://www.uis.edu/
Keystone College PA
https://www.keystone.edu/
Otterbein College, OH
http://www.otterbein.edu/
Taylor University, IN
http://www.taylor.edu/
University of Indianapolis, IN
http://www.uindy.edu/
Northwestern College MN
https://unwsp.edu/
Taylor University, IN
http://www.taylor.edu/
Wheaton College, IL
https://www.wheaton.edu/
University of Missouri-St Louis, MO
http://www.umsl.edu/
Wesley University DE
http://wesley.edu/
Wilberforce U, OH
http://wilberforce.edu/
University of Southern Indiana, IN
https://www.usi.edu/
York College of Pennsylvania PA
https://www.ycp.edu/
Wilmington College, OH
https://www.wilmington.edu/
University of Wisconsin-Parkside, WI
https://www.uwp.edu/
William Jewell College, MO
http://jewell.edu/
Return to Top of Page