New Perspectives on Stakeholders: Who Needs to Step Up to the Plate and How?

  • Laura KingEmail author
  • Sheryl Burgstahler
  • Björn Fisseler
  • Dana Kaspi-Tsahor


The focus of this chapter is those practitioners (stakeholders) operating in the field of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), disability and higher education who have a potentially important role to play in developing and implementing ICT-related practices that can facilitate positive learning experiences for students with disabilities in higher education. In order to examine the contribution that these stakeholders can make (both individually and collectively), this chapter will describe two case examples of what is considered to be effective practice in engaging all the relevant stakeholders; identify those stakeholders who tend to avoid engagement; examine how new and existing stakeholders might be effectively engaged in developing effective accessibility and ICT-related practice and discuss the implications for future research and practice.


ICT Disability Higher education Accessibility Stakeholders Organizational learning 


  1. Admon, Z. (2007). The right to access in Israeli legislation and legislation worldwide. In D. Feldman, Y. Danieli Lahav, & S. Haimovitz (Eds.), The accessibility of Israeli society to people with disabilities at the beginning of the 21st century (pp. 177–222). Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  2. Ankeny, E. M., & Lehaman, J. P. (2010). The transition lynchpin: The voices of individuals with disabilities who attended a community college transition program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(6), 477–496. Scholar
  3. Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99–111. Scholar
  4. Bundesamt für Justiz. (2006). General Act on Equal Treatment of 14 August 2006 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 1897), as last amended by Article 8 of the SEPA Accompanying Act of 3 April 2013 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 610). Resource document, Bundesamt für Justiz.
  5. Burgstahler, S. (2015). Promoters and inhibitors of universal design in higher education. In S. E. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed., pp. 287–296). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  6. California State University. (2004). Executive Order 926 – The California State University Policy on Disability Support and Accommodations. Resource document. CSU.
  7. Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 77–87. Scholar
  8. Cravero, C. (2017). Socially responsible public procurement and set-asides: A comparative analysis of the US, Canada and the EU. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 8, 174–192. Scholar
  9. Deem, R. (1998). ‘New managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47–70. Scholar
  10. Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (Accessibility Adjustments for Higher Education Institutions and Higher Education Services). (2016). Resource document. Commission for Equal Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  11. Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (Accessibility Adjustments for Service). (2013). Resource document. Commission for Equal Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  12. Fichten, C., in collaboration with King, L., Havel, A., Jorgensen, M., & Lussier, A. (2017, May). Stakeholder perspectives: A professor’s Canadian experience. Paper presented at the 2nd Ed-ICT International Network Symposium, Montréal, Québec. Resource document. Ed-ICT.
  13. Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., King, L., Jorgensen, M., Budd, J., Asuncion, J., et al. (2018). Are you in or out? Canadian students who register for disability-related services in junior/community colleges versus those who do not. Journal of Education and Human Development, 7(1), 166–175. Scholar
  14. Fichten, C. S., Heiman, T., Havel, A., Jorgensen, M., Budd, J., & King, L. (2016). Sustainability of disability-related services in Canada – Israel: Will the real universal design please stand up? Exceptionality Education International, 26(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  15. Fowler, A., & Gilfillan, M. (2003). A framework for stakeholder integration in higher education information systems projects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(4), 468–489. Scholar
  16. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganim, R. (2014). Career guidance, training and education for people with intellectual developmental disabilities: Modeling trends and proposing policy and application models in Israel. Resource document. Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services.
  18. Glesson, B., & Rozo, M. (2013, October 2). The silo mentality: How to break down the barriers. Resource document. Forbes.
  19. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324. Scholar
  20. Jorgensen, M., Fichten, C., King, L., & Havel, A. (2018). Proceedings of the Ed-ICT International Network Montreal Symposium: Stakeholder Perspectives. Resource document. Montréal, Québec: Adaptech Research Network.
  21. Kettunen, J. (2015). Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 56–65. Scholar
  22. Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning organization. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 7–22. Scholar
  23. Logermann, F., & Leišytė, L. (2015). Students as stakeholders in the policy context of the European standards and guidelines for quality assurance in higher education institutions. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 685–701). Scholar
  24. Martiniello, N., Jorgensen, M., Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J., Ferraro, V., Wolforth, J., et al. (2012). Meeting the e-learning and information and computer technology needs of post-secondary students with visual impairments: An overview of two studies. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-learn 2012 – World conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 726–730). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Scholar
  26. Ontarians with Disabilities Act. (2014, April 22). The act (AODA). Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  27. Örtenblad, A., & Koris, R. (2014). Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher educational institutions? A literature review and a “multi-stakeholder contingency approach”. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(2), 173–214. Scholar
  28. Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N. (2011). Inclusion of students with disabilities in higher education: Performance and participation in student’s experiences. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(2). Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  29. Seale, J. (2006). The rainbow bridge metaphor as a tool for developing accessible e-learning practices in higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning Technology, 32(2), 79–98. Scholar
  30. Seale, J. (2017). Issues of stakeholder engagement: Who are the stakeholders of disability and ICT related practice in postsecondary education and how can they be effectively engaged? Resource document. Ed-ICT.
  31. Seale, J. K. (2014). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Shireman, R. (2003, August 15). Ten questions college officials should ask about diversity. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  33. Sieben-Schneider, J. A., & Hamilton-Brodie, V. A. (2016). Doing the right thing: One university’s approach to digital accessibility. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(3), 221–230.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, D. G., & Parker, S. (2005). Organizational learning: A tool for diversity and institutional effectiveness. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 113–125. Scholar
  35. The Pennsylvania State University. (2014). Accessibility and usability at Penn State. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  36. Thomson, G. (2018, February 13). A lengthy 14 months after finally promising to develop an education accessibility standard under Ontario’s Disabilities Act, the Wynne Government finally convenes the first meetings of the promised Education Standards Development Committees. Google Scholar
  37. University of Washington. (n.d.). Accessible technology at the UW. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  38. Washington State – Office of the Chief Information Officer. (2017, September 12). Policy #188 – Accessibility. Resource document. Washington State – Office of the Chief Information Officer
  39. Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) overview. Resource document. WAI.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura King
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sheryl Burgstahler
    • 2
  • Björn Fisseler
    • 3
  • Dana Kaspi-Tsahor
    • 4
  1. 1.Cégep André-Laurendeau and Adaptech Research NetworkMontrealCanada
  2. 2.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.FernUniversitätHagenGermany
  4. 4.The Open UniversityRa’ananaIsrael

Personalised recommendations