Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nicolas Sauret, Alyse Yilmaz, Elisabeth von Samson, Talal Mokeddem, Najat Idder, Guylène Deruel, Carla Jordao, Samuel Szoniecky, Everardo Reyes, Gérard Uzan, Dominique Archambault, Catherine Gouédard, and Gaëtan Bourmaud for their contribution to the design and dissemination of the questionnaire. They also thank the professionals who agreed to take part in the survey, as well as Paris 8 University for the funding provided for this research project.
1Recent research has shown that making a digital product accessible can also contribute to reducing its energy footprint, for example when websites are adapted to simplified languages (González-Sordé, 2025). The research also underscores that products and services that are said to be “natively accessible” consume fewer resources in the long-run than those which are not, as they do not require later correction or adjustment to respond to users’ needs (Hermosa-Ramírez, 2025). Convergence between accessibility and sustainability, nonetheless is less evident in other realms, such as machine translation where improved access to information for a significant number of people comes alongside considerable environmental impacts of training and using large language models (O’Brien & Brereton, 2022). In this context, the research emphasises the importance of increasing awareness around issues of accessibility and environmental impact linked to digital technologies, to ensure that professionals can make informed digital choices.
2This article examines awareness of specific issues linked to digital accessibility in an academic context. Digital accessibility in the higher education sector is not only a legal obligation, following what is referred to as the “Disabilities” act of 2005, but also an important expressed need that is still only partially met (CNCPH, 2023). We start with an overview of existing research to then present our approach for analysing digital accessibility adoption by university staff. Our hypothesis is that awareness about digital accessibility should not be approached as a simple question of technical capacity, but instead must be envisaged more broadly, as a professional culture developed by the people working within an organisation. This is followed by a presentation of our methodology and of the first results from a survey carried out in 2024 covering Paris 8 University staff. These results show how a culture of digital accessibility is constructed at the intersection of professional practices and training, of experiences with disability and of the representations of accessibility.
3The research field of digital accessibility, dominated by the field of computer science, initially focused on technological innovation and on how people considered disabled used digital technologies. This initial work played a fundamental role in the development of assistive technologies and in the formulation of recommendations for accessible design, which today are incorporated in digital accessibility regulations. More recently, attention has turned towards the adoption of digital accessibility by professionals involved in its implementation. In this section, we present three research areas that approach the issue from different angles: analyses of training, assessments of organisational maturity of organisations, and surveys of professionals in a specific sector.
4Analyses of digital accessibility training often take the form of surveys or observation in IT training courses, and seek to understand the effectiveness of the systems used. Such work examines, for instance, the impact of having persons with disabilities involved in training (Ludi et al., 2018), the perceived difficulty of certain techniques for ensuring accessibility (Crabb et al., 2019), or on resistance from students on getting trained in accessibility (Conn et al., 2020). Although such research is targeted at future professionals, it remains focused on training contexts and on issues specific to the IT field. Also, as such research occurs in training contexts, little attention is paid to individual initiative or initiatives by collectives of individuals.
5Another body of research is interested in what are called digital accessibility maturity models, that is, the capacity and effectiveness of organisations to ensure the implementation of accessbiilty. A review of recent literature (Auer et al., 2023) provides a compilation of maturity models which have been used to analyse digital accessibility in higher learning establishments. When these models focus on organisation staff, they do so through indicators such as human resource allocations, managerial responsibilities or the existence of an explicit strategy for digital accessibility. They are thus centred around management aspects of the organisation, adopting an approach towards digital accessibility adoption that is quite top-down.
6Lastly, a third body of research focuses on digital accessibility adoption by staff in a given sector. A survey carried out in France in 2013, for example, sought to reveal the practices and impediments to adoption for professionals working in the internet sector (Lespinet-Najib et al., 2015). Similar surveys have recently been undertaken in other countries, notably in the field of software development in Kuwait (AlMeraj et al., 2023). A dissertation in progress (von Samson, 2024) explores digital accessibility adoption by library professionals. Our research project aligns with this approach and examines the role of practices and representations in digital accessibility adoption by higher education staff.
7Taking inspiration from the concepts of information culture and digital culture, we propose the concept of digital accessibility culture in order to interrogate the modalities of adoption by professionals (Laitano & Yilmaz, forthcoming). The concept of culture first of all allows us to go beyond a strictly technical or utilitarian vision of accessibility, by conceiving accessibility not only as a set of skills to acquire, but as the result of social and professional practices that are embedded within a given organisational and cultural context. In the same way that making a digital technology accessible cannot be understood independently from its contexts of production and usage (Lewthwaite, 2014; Laitano, 2015), the integration of digital accessibility in a university context, beyond mere compliance with universal technical standards, cannot be understood without reference to the practices and representations of those who realise this integration on a daily basis.
8Like the concept of information culture (Simonnot, 2009), the concept of digital accessibility culture highlights the shared, collective and crosscutting dimension of practices, representations and knowledge mobilised within a given social group. In a context where digital technologies are deeply embedded in all professional practices, accessibility cannot be considered as being the sole responsibility of specialists such as disability advisors, and IT or communication specialists. Similarly, accessibility cannot just focus on institutional websites, given that all digital products, even an email, can potentially generate situations of disability. Lastly, accessibility can also not be limited to digital production practices as it is also an issue relevant to other professional activities such as the definition of job descriptions and of training offers, or procurement procedures for digital products and services.
9A cultural approach places particular interest on the individual and collective construction of meaning (Liquète, 2018). Analysing the culture of accessibility implies examining the way in which professionals perceive and understand the concept. These aspects were addressed in the French survey of digital professionals (Lespinet-Najib et al., 2015) which highlighted a diversity of representations associated with accessibility (a disability issue, a universal design principle, a technological asset, a constraint, or an activist cause), as well as different perceptions about approaches for implementing accessibility, coloured by the idea of a supposed graphic poverty and the additional costs of compliance with accessibility norms. The cultural (and pragmatic) approach also reminds us that meaning is constructed through people’s lived experiences (Lehmans, 2018). Therefore, awareness of digital accessibility and an understanding of the needs of people with disabilities often results from personal or professional encounters with situations of disability.
10The “Digital accessibility culture in universities: the case of Paris 8 University staff” research project aimed to understand the acculturation and awareness of higher education professionals of digital accessibility issues. The Paris 8 University has a historic commitment to disability and inclusion, and thus represented an interesting field for study. The data collection conducted aimed to identify the range of accessibility adoption practices, assess the staff’s level of awareness of accessibility issues, understand the factors that encouraged or hindered action on accessibility, and analyse the role of representations and personal experiences.
11The first phase consisted in a survey which targeted all staff, regardless of status or role. This methodological choice aligns with our hypothesis that digital accessibility involves a range of actors, not just IT staff or accessibility officers. The questionnaire was disseminated by the university’s Observatory of Student Life, using electronic means in spring 2024.
12Five types of data were collected:
-
professional profile taken from the contacts database (corps and station);
-
representations of digital accessibility (two closed questions, one mixed);
-
personal experiences of disability (two closed questions);
-
training on digital accessibility (four closed questions);
-
specific practices linked to digital accessibility (two closed questions, one mixed).
13Of the 1,651 staff members that the Paris 8 University had in 2024, 309 responded to the questionnaire, for a response rate of 19%. The sample had more women (61%) with BIATSS staff (that is, library, engineering, administrative, technical, social and health staff) slightly overrepresented (53%) compared to their actual population (45%) and the opposite for teaching staff (47% for 55% in the actual population). By consequence, the data was adjusted to reflect the proportions of the two staff corps in the population in all the calculations that follow. Two-thirds of respondents were aged between 40 and 59 years (67%). The average age of respondents is 46.9 years (SD = 9.8). Respondents work mostly in faculties (66%) and in central professional services (19%) or in shared professional services (11%).
14The staff surveyed had varying representations of the concept of digital accessibility. More than four out of ten respondents (44%) identified the most common definition (“a clear and operational digital environment where which persons with disabilities can produce and share content.”) However, a quarter of respondents (25%) focused on the idea of continuity of access (anywhere and anytime), and another quarter (24%) on access being universal (a digital tool designed for the widest range of people). Three out of four respondents knew what a screenreader is (75%), and the proportion was the same for both teaching and BIATSS staff (χ2(2) = 3.23 ; ns).
- 1 The university had a little over 500 students registered with the Disability Service in 2024.
15However, three-quarters of the staff (77%) had no idea how many students at the university had disabilities. Those who thought they could estimate this figure (N = 71) gave a median and quite correct estimate1 of 400 students registered with the Disability Service (Q1 = 200; Q3 = 700). The lack of a reference figure reveals how even if accessibility is understood by professionals, it is not necessarily integrated into their daily frames of reference.
Table 1
|
|
BIATSS (N = 132)
|
Teachers (N = 136)
|
Total (N = 294)
|
|
No
|
79%
|
92%
|
86%
|
|
Yes
|
21%
|
8%
|
14%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Frequency of responses to the question “Have you received training on digital accessibility?”; 15 non-respondents; adjusted data.
16Almost nine out of ten respondents had not received any training on digital accessibility (86%). This was more frequently the case for teaching staff (92%) than for BIATSS staff (79%) (χ2(1) = (χ2(1) = 9.58 ; p = 0.002). When staff had received training (N = 61), it was most often as part of training for their specific job position (36%) or through self-learning (31%), and less often as part of their foundational training (18%), and this held for all staff corps (χ2(12) = 11.4 ; ns). These results suggest that training most often emerges through concrete work circumstances and specific experiences, rather than through planned or structured mechanisms.
17Almost nine out of ten respondents (88%) stated that they had had experience with a person with disabilities in their personal or professional lives; this held for both BIATSS staff and the teaching staff (χ2(1) = 1.72 ; ns). By contrast, extremely few (6%) in both corps had themselves made specific adjustments in terms of digital accessibility (χ2(1) = 0.00 ; ns).
18To characterise the accessibility adoption profiles in professional practices, we undertook a k-means clustering analysis. This kind of analysis divides individuals based on a set of variables (Chong, 2021), which in this case, centred around what attention was given to accessibility in certain professional activities. Individuals were put in groups depending on the pattern of responses (cluster). We used the Hartigan-Wong algorithm with a starting number of random values of 10 so as to minimize intragroup variance (Zakharov, 2016). The number of clusters chosen—3—was the optimal number proposed by the algorithm. Table 2 presents the standardized mean values (centroids) for each cluster and each professional practice.
Table 2
|
|
Indifferent
|
Aware
|
Committed
|
|
Production of digital documents
|
− 0.766
|
0.782
|
0.522
|
|
Creation of online learning activities
|
− 0.738
|
0.694
|
0.582
|
|
Use of collaborative work tools
|
− 0.733
|
0.509
|
0.816
|
|
Website or digital application administration
|
− 0.436
|
− 0.219
|
1.176
|
|
Definition of job descriptions
|
− 0.439
|
− 0.326
|
1.324
|
|
Provision of staff training
|
− 0.350
|
− 0.361
|
1.188
|
|
Respondents (%)
|
126 (47%)
|
82 (30%)
|
62 (23%)
|
Table of standardised centroids for each professional practice and by cluster.
19This analysis revealed three profiles based on attention given to accessibility in various professional practices. Almost a quarter of the sample belongs to the group that can be qualified as committed (23% of the sample). This is the group that has most often received training on accessibility (25 % ; χ2(2) = 9.11 ; p = 0.011). The second group consists of almost a third of respondents and can be considered as the aware group (30% of the sample). This group tends to incorporate accessibility in a lower number of tasks, most of which are related to teaching. It is therefore logical that this group is overrepresented among teachers (χ2(2) = 52.1 ; p < 0.001). They have received training less often (12%). Lastly, the last group accounts for almost half the respondents and can be qualified as the indifferent (47% of the sample). This group has much less frequently accessed training on accessibility (8%) and either almost never takes accessibility in consideration, or feels that digital accessibility is not relevant to their work.
20Professionals in the indifferent group are also more likely to have stated never having had exposure to people with disabilities (19% versus 1% among the aware and 6% among the committed; χ2(2) = 18.0 ; p < 0.001). This observation calls for one to consider distance from accessibility not as resulting from lack of interest, but as the product of professional journeys and socialisation experiences. In a similar vein, the aware group are slightly more likely to themselves have made digital accessibility adjustments or used assistive technologies (10% compared to 2% among the indifferent; χ2(2) = 7.45 ; p = 0.024).
21The diversity of practices goes well beyond the activities listed. 15% of the sample thus declared that they undertook tasks related to digital accessibility which were not listed in the questionnaire, such as bibliographic information, the organisation of online seminars, benchmarking services, or disseminating the university’s accessibility policy. This diversity demonstrates that digital accessibility cannot be restricted to just certain specific jobs but needs to be considered as a crosscutting dimension which concerns all university personnel.
Table 4
|
|
Indifferent
|
Aware
|
Committed
|
Total
|
|
It’s not part of my job description
|
16%
|
12%
|
16%
|
15%
|
|
It takes too much time
|
8%
|
11%
|
13%
|
10%
|
|
I don’t think about it
|
29%
|
21%
|
20%
|
24%
|
|
Too few users need it
|
7%
|
6%
|
5%
|
7%
|
|
I don’t know how to
|
32%
|
37%
|
33%
|
34%
|
|
I find it ugly or illegible
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
Other
|
7%
|
12%
|
12%
|
10%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Responses to the question “What are the reasons that limit you from integrating digital accessibility in your work?”; 34 non-respondents; adjusted data.
22The three groups are similar as far as obstacles to integrating accessibility in professional practices is concerned (χ2(12) = 8.35 ; ns) (table 4). The leading reason is a lack of skills. One respondent out of three (34%) declares that they do not know how to integrate accessibility. The second leading reason is that integration is missing from professional routines. Thus, one staff member out of four, says that they do not think about it. This answer is a bit more frequent among the indifferent group (29%). Only 15% of staff declare that it is not part of their job description.
Table 5
|
|
Indifferent
|
Aware
|
Committed
|
Total
|
|
Accessing dedicated technical support
|
14%
|
20%
|
21%
|
18%
|
|
Abiding with the law
|
15%
|
14%
|
13%
|
14%
|
|
Abiding with Paris 8 University policy
|
16%
|
13%
|
13%
|
14%
|
|
Accessing the necessary training material
|
18%
|
16%
|
20%
|
17%
|
|
Receiving regular offers of training
|
25%
|
27%
|
28%
|
26%
|
|
Other
|
12%
|
10%
|
5%
|
10%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Responses to the question “What motivated you or would motivate you to get training?”; 23 non-respondents, adjusted data.
23The motivating factors declared by the staff members are also similar across the three (χ2(10) = 9.95 ; ns) (table 5). More than a quarter of staff members (26%) would like to receive regular offers of training. Almost one out of five think that having technical support (18%), or adequate training material (17%) would encourage better integration of accessibility in their professional practice.
24Research today on the adoption of digital accessibility by professionals is focused on training contexts, on management approaches or on the study of professional practices. In this article, we have proposed a cultural approach for understanding accessibility adoption, inspired by work on information culture and digital culture. This perspective allows accessibility to be apprehended not only as a technical and individual skill, but as a set of representations, practices and socially-situated experiences.
25Through a survey covering University Paris 8 staff, we sought to render the culture of digital accessibility intelligible. Our results show that even if staff seem to recognise the importance of accessibility, it is not sufficiently present in their professional references and habits. The low proportion of staff trained in digital accessibility attests to the fact that learning is based on ad hoc demand rather than on institutional structure. Awareness of accessibility varies depending on training but also on experiences linked to disability. Lack of knowledge remains a constraint, but it is combined with the difficulty of incorporating accessibility in work practices.