The Role of Accessibility and Equality in Open Leadership and
Management
Fahriye Altınay
1
, Gülsün Başarı
1
, Gökmen Dağlı
2
and Zehra Altınay
1
1
Faculty of Education, Educational Sciences Institute, Societal Research and Development Center,
Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus
2
Faculty of Education, Kyrenia University, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus
Keywords: Accessibility, Quality, Higher Education, Technology.
Abstract: Accessibility and equality in higher education for quality improvement become crucial research challenge
that need to be undertaken as part of the quality strategies and innovation in higher education. With the
development of information technologies and its applications on higher education policy and strategies,
diffusion of accessibility and equality to all learners comes across as the strategic quality movement in order
to underline importance and nature of openness, access and equality into practice. Therefore, accessibility
and equality are the quality indicators to set opportunities in learning with disabilities. This research has
qualitative nature which the quality, accessibility, equality, technology, and management practices were
examined upon semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was done to reveal the findings that the model
can be significant to set barrier free education and future plans for accessibility, equality and management in
higher education.
1 INTRODUCTION
Quality is a key philosophy in higher education
policies and strategies in development cycle of
institutions. At the same time, higher education
practices become a tool for social empowerment in
diffusing equality and access to learning
environment without any location and time
limitations for all human being. In this respect,
information technology has a role as bridge to foster
learning opportunities and opens insights to acquire
equal look and lives for the learners with disabilities.
Furthermore, accessing learning environment and
openness show how polices and strategies of higher
educational institutions play a great role to
demonstrate their policy on quality improvement
and internalization (Jungblut, et al., 2015). Today, it
is widely known that, there is competition among
universities in global market which opening up
education is a way to show how accessibility and
equality policies and strategies can contribute for
(Quinn, et al., 2009).
In order to maintain a sustainable development
and dynamic strategies, higher educational
institutions need to work an ongoing structure to
develop common quality standards for all learners.
In this regard, universities should agree on common
principles on taking standards, should practice
effective organizational quality and ethics, and
prioritize accreditation and ranking in order to
develop in quality circles. Considering innovation as
opening up education within a frame of life long
learning and professional development raise the
dynamic system, prestige and attraction of higher
education (Filippakou, 2011; Jungblut, et al., 2015).
Bearing in mind the requirements of the business
world, higher education programmes should
constantly be overviewed and improved to match
international standards. In order to achieve
bencmarking and business model through opening
up education, it has already considered that quality
circles and standards should be implemented,
evaluated, and applied to higher education sectors
too (Zineldin, et al. 2011).
Inline with the developments all around the
world regarding the equality, accessibility and
openness in higher education, there is shift from
traditional education to learner centered approach
for learning. In this respect, creating accessible
campus and its facilities for all learners put those
universities in a leading position. In this regard,
open education resources, resources for learners with
Altinay, F., Ba¸sarı, G., Da
˘
glı, G. and Altinay, Z.
The Role of Accessibility and Equality in Open Leadership and Management.
DOI: 10.5220/0006384707150719
In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 715-719
ISBN: 978-989-758-239-4
Copyright © 2017 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
715

disabilities have great importance on the right of
education, equality and socialization of the learners
with disabilities (Yssel, et al., 2016).
The aim of this study is to evaluate quality
standards of universities upon accessibility, equality
and openness regarding the learning environments
for learners with disabilities. The following research
questions are investigated during the research
process:
1. What are the accessibility standards in higher
education institutions for learners with
disabilities?
2. What are the learning opportunities of higher
education institutions for learners with
disabilities in terms of equality?
3. How do higher education institutions implement
strategic policies for accessibility, equality,
openness?
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research Design
This study relies on quality research nature which
patterns, experiences, perceptions of specialist in the
field were examined upon the quality, accessibility,
equality, technology, and management practices.
The framework of the research design covers
socially constructed interaction which
methodological path capture inner perspective and
emic understanding within inductive process
(Creswell, 2003; Cohen, et al., 2000). In order to
understand how meaning and experiences are
constructed, this study is reflective to examine
accessibility, equality and openness in higher
education institutions.
2.2 Participants and Ethical Concerns
The participants were picked through snowball
sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Through this
sampling, it is aimed at collecting the most data
from university lecturers (Miles and Huberman,
1994). 180 participants, as shown in Table 1, from
universities in Cyprus took part in this study. The
informed consent form was employed to guarantee
confidentiality and autonomy during the process.
Table 1: Participants.
Participants Lecturers
University1 45
University2 35
University3 35
University4 30
University5 25
University6 10
Total 180
2.3 Data Collection Technique and
Analysis
An interview technique – a qualitative method- was
conducted in this study, which can be categorized as
structured, semi-structured, and non-structured
interviews. For a semi-structured interview,
questions are prepared in advance and data is
collected (Cresswell, 2003). The analysis of soft
data as qualitative nature was done through thematic
analysis which selected themes and codes help
revealing standards of accessibility, equality (Cohen,
et al., 2000). 45 minuted inverviews aim to evaluate
quality strategies related to the education of the
learners with disabilities in higher education policy.
The interview form consisted of questions to define
perceptions and experiences of professionals as
regarding the quality strategies for learning
opportunities. To provide the content validity, three
experts in the field overviewed the form and
mismatching or similar questions were either
omitted or reorganized. Then a pilot study was
conducted with five lecturers and the content of the
form was finalized. Meanwhile, all said was
recorded and put into written version afterwards. All
the documents were reviewed by two other experts
for the consolidation of the content on which there
was a %91 agreement on the validity of the
questions.
2.4 Coding the Data
The data was analysed through thematic analysis in
four steps. All recordings were analysed, each line
was numbered and the interview document was
formed. The cassettes and interview documents were
overviewed and finalized by an expert. The data
collected was examined and put into meaningful
sections in groups of ten and then named and coded,
which became the key list. The coding keys and
interview documents were read separately by the
researchers for “agreement” or “disagreement” and
necessary corrections were made. For the reliability
of the research (Miles and Huberman, 1994)
reliability format was conducted and the average
was calculated as %89. According to (Miles and
Huberman, 1994), %70 and above average is
FOLSC 2017 - Special Session on Fostering Open Leadership in School Culture
716

assumed as reliable. So, the finding in this try is
acceptable. The codes given by the researchers were
taken as the basis in reaching the themes. While
analyzing and modeling the research data, “QSR
Nvivo 8” was made use of.
The specified codes at this stage were put under
specific categories. Four dimensions were formed to
define and evaluate the education of the disabled in
higher education in North Cyprus in the light of the
views raised by university staff. Participants’ views,
at this point, were explained in a comprehensible
way and presented to the reader from first hand. All
the data was dealt with through a qualitative
research step, interpreted and some conclusions,
which were supported by literature, were drawn.
3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The findings revealed the question of quality
standards in accessibility, learning opportunities and
future policies as regards the perceptions and
experiences of specialist and experts in the field
within the frame of higher education policies. For
this reason, the data was shown in tables in
percentage and the participants’ views were
presented in every dimension with discussion.
3.1 Dimension 1: Quality Indicators in
Accessibility and Openness
This dimension deals with specifying digital and
barrier-free education in which 180 participants
were reflected their experiences and perceptions.
Their views are presented in Table 2 under themes
and rates.
Table 2: Quality Indicators in Accessibility and Openness.
Themes Respondentes %
Non‐
Respondent
%
Accessible
materials for
deaf and blind
people
121 67% 59 33%
Distance
education and
material based
insruction
132 73% 48 27%
Criteria for
teacher
education
138 76% 42 24%
Unit for people
with
disabilities
144 80% 36 20%
Family
education
101 56% 79 44%
Digitalliteracy
122 67% 58 33%
Courses for
awareness for
learning
disabilities
70 38% 110 62%
Policies for
people with
disabilities
154 85% 26 15%
Barrier free
campus and
unit
154 85% 26 15%
Accessible web 
sites and open 
resources
144 80% 36 20%
%85 of the participants, the highest rate, emphasized
the need for an education policy for the learners with
disabilities which accessibility and openness are the
significant indicator of quality. Meanwhile, at the
same rate of (%85) university specialist raised the
same view, saying that there is intensified need for
counselling and information unit for those learners
in higher education institutions as a service policy
within competitive educational market. As an
answer to the government’s policy for the learners
with disabilities, L.21 raised significant point as,
“The government still lacks a “policy for those
learners” and hasn’t asked for any support or
collaboration with universities, which is a clear
indication that this issue is not been taken
seriously”. %85 of the participants agreed that there
should be barrier-free university campus and
facilities for learners with disabilities. “I can
sincerely argue that nothing has been thought or
tried for the benefit of those learners. Whereas,
universities should try to raise their standards
among world universities by providing barrier-free
education. Universities should urgently set barrier-
free education units and policies” (L.32). Another
participant, (L.47), commented on the same issue
and said, “In today’s overwhelmingly developing
technology, accessibility and widespread use of the
internet should be developed more for openness and
opening up education for professional learning”. As
it can be seen in Table 2, accessible websites for all
learners is one of the most frequently raised issues
by the participants. %67 agreed that books and
presentation formats for the use of the blind and the
deaf should be in the reach as service for those
people that it reflects service variation and support
for those learners. “I very much hope and want to
see that the authorities prepare sample material,
The Role of Accessibility and Equality in Open Leadership and Management
717

books and presentations, in the reach of the learners
with disabilities” (L.89).
3.2 Dimension II: Future Policies in
Opportunities for Learning
Disabilities
180 participants were questions about their views on
the subject-matter. Their views are shown under
rates and themes in Table 3.
%85 of the participants emphasized the need for
people with disabilities to be able to have access to
programs and services. The biggest majority agreed
on this theme compared to the other themes. The
participant lecturers stressed saying that developed
technology should be put at the service of the people
with disabilities in enriching learning. The same
rate, %85, raised views about the necessity that
course books should be supported by special
education and interaction topics urged by the
government. “I can, without hesitation, say that the
government has not put any effort to meet such
needs of the disabled. The mentioned topics should
be integrated in the programs without delay” (L.32).
The same wish came from students, families, and
educators as well. “During the integration process,
the Ministry of Education should take
responsibilities. All the involved seriously need such
an implementation in plans and programms” (L.49).
%80 of the participants stressed the need that units
should be formed in the Coordination by law.
Related to the same theme, a lecturer, (L.47), stated
views as, “The committees and units in the
Coordination bylaw should try for more contribution
from the universities, which can place them among
world universities”. %67 of the participants strongly
supported this statement. (L.89) pointed out saying,
“If copyright and IT (Information Technology)
offences are legally dealt with, it will support the
fight of the people with disabilities to meet their
needs and protect their rights and help solve their
problems”.
Table 3: Future policies in opportunities for learning
disabilities.
Themes Respondentes %
Non-
Respondent
%
Regulations and
coordinations in higher
education
121
67% 59 33%
Commissions and
collaboration
132
73% 48 27%
Accessibility and
openness
138
76% 42 24%
Appropriate teaching
and instruction methods
for people with
disabilities
144
80% 36 20%
Scholarship and
support services
101
56% 79 44%
Special needs education
p
rograms and courses
122
67% 58 33%
Physical and digital
accessibility
70
38% 110 62%
Awareness in society
for people with
disabilities
154
85% 26 15%
Funding 154
85% 26 15%
Database for
information
144
80% 36 20%
4 CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The research relies on accessibility and equality in
higher education for quality improvement. It fosters
the quality strategies and innovation of higher
education in terms of learning disabilities. By the
role of information technologies and its applications
in order to improve higher education policy and
strategies, the importance of openness, access and
equality into practice are highly intensified need to
be examined. Therefore, this research encapsulated
that higher education institutions pay attention to be
barrier-free campuses and have the policy to
establish standards of accessibility and equality for
quality in higher education. Possible solutions as a
model for the practices of accessibility are
highlighted to point out learning with disabilities.
As accessibility and equality are the quality
indicators to gain opportunities in learning with
disabilities, this chapter aimed to identify in
evaluating the quality strategies applied in higher
education in North Cyprus. It also enriches to define
lecturers’ conceptions on the education of people
with disabilities. As digital and barrier-free
education was examined to set strategies and
policies, it can clearly be seen that the most
frequently stressed theme in this situation was the
preparation of materials – books, presentations – in
an acceptable format, which could be easily
accessible by the people with disabilities (Altinay, et
al., 2016). In addition, the participants expressed
views saying that there should be supporting units in
distance learning programs at universities to
facilitate meeting the needs of the people with
disabilities. Douce (2015) suggests that teachers to
FOLSC 2017 - Special Session on Fostering Open Leadership in School Culture
718

teach the people with disabilities could gain
trainings for enriching their learning at education
faculties. Through community support programs,
higher education should prepare programs to educate
families. Digital literacy and subjects dealing with
the people with disabilities in terms of sensitivity
could be integrated in programs. Furthermore, the
government should have a great interest in working
in collaboration with higher education systems and
draw policies for learning disabilities. This can be
practiced through providing widespread access to
websites by the barrier-free education units of higher
education (
GabelandMiskovic,2014).
In addition, future policies and strategies about
activities and implementations in educating the
people with disabilities can be achieved through
digital and barrier-free education. In this respect, it
is crucial that the government takes emergent
policies and strategies in arranging legal procedures
for future implementations (Cardoso et al., 2016).
Once the legal procedures are put in force,
coordination for accessibility and openness by law
can be drawn, which will eradicate in all learning
disabilities in the way to form commissions and
units to provide easy access to programs and
services (Vickerman and Blundell, 2010). One of the
biggest deficiencies at universities is the lack of
teaching methods for the people with disabilities.
Therefore, higher education should carry out more
scientific studies to develop teaching methods and
give a budget for grants and other supports for
enriching to overcome learning disabilities.
Moreover, there should be special education and
interaction activities on both academic and social
programs.
In order to fulfil expectations, the government
should finance higher education to set up accessible
physical and digital infrastructure (Tuomi et al.,
2015). It is also suggested that higher education
actively participate in making the community aware
of the disabled and their needs. Altinay, et al. (2016)
point out that for future implementations in barrier-
free education for the people with disabilities, a
data-base needs to be developed, which will enable
it to reach families and help will be served easily by
the guidance and consultancy unit.
REFERENCES
Altınay, Z., Ossiannilsson, E., Kalaç, M. O., Başarı, G.,
Aktepebaşı, A., Altınay, F. (2016). Establishing a
Framework on OER Practices for ICT Competence of
Disabled Citizens. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology.
Altinay, Z., Menemenci, N., Saner, T., Altinay, F. (2016).
The Role of Social Media Tools in Accessible
Tourism for Disabled Citizens. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society.
Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., Stensaker, B. (2016). Why is
quality in higher education not achieved? The view of
academics. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher
Education, 41( 6), 950-965.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research
methods in education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
California: SAGE.
Douce, C. (2015). E-learning and disability in higher
education. Open Learning: The Journal Of Open,
Distance And E-Learning, 30(1), 89-92. 
Filippakou, O. (2011). The idea of quality in higher
education: a conceptual approach. Discourse: Studies
In The Cultural Politics Of Education, 32(1), 15-28.
Gabel, S. L, Miskovic, M. (2014). Discourse and the
containment of disability in higher education: an
institutional analysis. Disability & Society, 29( 7),
1145-1158. 
Jungblut, J., Vukasovic, M., Stensaker, M. (2015). Student
perspectives on quality in higher education. European
Journal of Higher Education, 5( 2),157-180. 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative
data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
California: SAGE Publications.
Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P., Johnson, D. M. (2009).
Service quality in higher education. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 20(2),139-152.
Vickerman, P., Blundell, M (2010). Hearing the voices of
disabled students in higher education. Disability &
Society, 25(1), 21-32. 
Tuomi, M. T., Lehtomäki, E., Matonya, M. (2015). As
Capable as Other Students: Tanzanian Women with
Disabilities in Higher Education. International
Journal of Disability, Development And Education,
62( 2).
Yssel, N., Pak, N., Beilke, J. (2016). A Door Must Be
Opened: Perceptions of Students with Disabilities in
Higher Education. International Journal Of Disability,
Development And Education, 63( 3), 384-394.
Zineldin, M., Camgoz Akdag, H., Vasicheva, V. (2011).
Assessing quality in higher education: new criteria for
evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality In Higher
Education, 17(2), 231-243.
The Role of Accessibility and Equality in Open Leadership and Management
719