Review of filled out questionnaires by University centers:

University	Number of faculties	Number of facilities in the survey	Number of filed out questionnaires
Belgrade	34	30	148
Nis	13	4	27
Total	47	34	175

Research was made during May and June of 2004. with students of University of Belgrade and Nis. 175 students in total was involved in this research .148 in Belgrade and 27 in Nis, from that number 94 was female and 81 of male gender.

Structure of sample by disability is:

-     59 persons (or 33,7% of the sample), with movement impediment;

-         52 persons (or 29,7%) with chronic problems;

-         40 persons (or 22,9%) with visual impairment;

-         9 persons (5,1%) with hearing impairment;

-         25 persons (14,3%) that are categorized as “other”

Judging by the numbers stated, 10 persons have combined (multiple) disability. And taken into account the size of the specimen compared to the total population of students with disabilities on those faculties, we can assess that this sample truthfully describes the population by gender distribution and also by the type of disability represented.

Representation and analysis of the research results

I Assessment of physical accessibility

Faculty

Question was asked: What will make the universities more accessible, and the majority answered:

-          97 persons (55,4%), say improvement of physical access,

-          29 persons (16,6%), points out the need for faculties to accommodate to persons with visual impairments;

-          8 persons (4,6%), marked improvement of communication, and

-          6 persons (3,4%) necessity of improving hygienic conditions.

Next categories with less frequency:

-          improvement of transportation 1,7% (3 persons)

-          ventilation 1,1% (2 persons)

-          introducing personal assistance 1,1% (2 persons)

-          smaller learning groups and accessibility of the information over the internet 0,6% (1 person)

For the convincingly the most answers in category of physical accessibility isn’t just because of there was most participants with that kind of disability but also the fact that the terms of accommodating to that kind of disability is the most striking, while the majority of students with disabilities don’t have the consciousness about equipment that will help students with sensory impairments to traverse and study or help students with chronic problems.

Variation of assessment by gender

From eight estimated aspects of physical accessibility of faculties, only two aspects majority assessed as inaccessible:

Elevators (it was asked for spaciousness, with of the entrance adequate for the wheelchair users and accessibility of controls to be assessed)

-          44,3% of the questioned assessed elevators to be inaccessible;

-          21,1 assessed to be partially accessible;

-          33,6% as totally accessible.

Difference in assessment by gender was not statistically significant.

Orientation around the faculty building ( for students with visual impairment):

-          62,6% of the questioned assessed that on their faculty there is none of the equipment that would make the orientation easier;

-          17% say that on their faculty there are some of the former;

-          20,4% of the questioned considers that the terms of adequate support for orientation are met 

In these assessments also there are no statistical distinctive differences by gender.

Assessment of other aspects of accessibility has a similar tendency.  Majority of questioned considers that they are satisfied.

Entrance to the faculty

-          49,7% of the questioned considers that the entrances to their faculties are entirely accessible;

-          28,4% considers that they are partially accessible;

-          21,9% considers that they are totally inaccessible.

Difference in assessment by gender was not statistically significant.

Accessibility of classrooms

-          46,4% of the questioned has the opinion that the classrooms are completely accessible;

-          38,1% considers that they are partially accessible;

-          While 15,5% considers that they are totally inaccessible.

In this case there is a considerable difference between genders. Male examinees in majority to females assessed the classrooms to be totally accessible. In this frame “totally accessible” 57,7% were male, while in “partially accessible” 64,1% female.

Accessibility of libraries

-          44,9% of the questioned considers that libraries are accessible;

-          35,3% considers that they are partially accessible;

-          while 19,8% considers that they are inaccessible;

    Difference in assessment by gender was not statistically significant.

Accessibility of offices of the professors

-          44% of the persons questioned assessed them as totally accessible;

-          38,1% as partially accessible;

-          While 17,9% assessed them as completely inaccessible.

    Difference in assessment by gender was not statistically significant.

Accessibility of administrative offices

-         50,9% of participants assessed the administrative services as totally accessible;

-         34,9% that they are partially accessible;

-         While 14,2% of the participants assessed them as totally inaccessible.

    Difference in assessment by gender was not statistically significant.

Accessibility of toilets 

-         52,2% questioned assessed that toilets are completely accessible;

-         27,4% assessed them as partially accessible’

-         And 21,4% as totally inaccessible.

    Difference in assessment by gender was not statistically significant.

Varying of assessment due to difference in disability

Entrance to the faculty

Between the questioned who assessed that the entrances to the faculties are totally inaccessible, majority are the persons with movement impediment (36,1%) , and persons with chronic problems (22,2%).

On the other hand, the ones who assessed the entrances as completely accessible, majority are the persons with chronic problems (22,6%).

Differences in these assessments are statistically important.

Accessibility of classrooms

In the category answers: “Totally inaccessible”, in this case also is as greater percent of persons with movement impediment (48,1%).

Persons with audio and visual impairment participated with 11,1% each, persons with chronic problems 14,8%, persons with combined problems 3,7%, and with “other” 11,1%.

Persons with chronic problems were in majority to assess the classrooms as totally accessible (33,3%).

Having in view the frame of different kinds of disabilities, 38,3% of persons with movement impediment considers that classrooms are totally accessible, contrary to the 27,7% of those who consider that they are inaccessible.

Then the persons with visual impairments are in question 56,3% considers that classrooms are totally accessible.

Considerable is the difference in the assessment of the audio impaired persons, from whom 60% considers that classrooms are totally inaccessible for them.

For the persons with chronic problems the classrooms are generally accessible (59,1%), while persons with combined problems and from category “other” assess the classrooms as partially accessible (57,1%, respectively, 51,9%). These differences in percentages are statistically important.

Accessibility of libraries

The majority of those who accessed libraries as inaccessible were persons with movement impediment (37,5%), and persons with visual impairment (31,3%).

On the other hand, in the category of totally accessible the dominating group are persons wit chronic problems (34,2%).

It is interesting to see distribution of the assessments between different kinds of disabilities.

When we look at the assessments of students with movement impediment, there is still majority of those who think that libraries are totally accessible (41,3%, contrary to 26,1% who think that they are totally inaccessible). Persons with visual impairment and persons with chronic problems also in majority assessed that classrooms are accessible (45,2% respectively 59,1% ).

Students with audio impairment, combined problems, and from the “other” category, in majority assess the libraries as partially accessible.

These differences are not statistically important.

Accessibility of professor’s offices

Tendencies of assessment in this category are similar to the former category.

Between the students with who assessed the offices as totally inaccessible, majority are students with movement impediment (46,7%)

In assessment of total accessibility of the offices are students wit chronic problems (36,8%)

Looking inside the framework of single groups of disabilities, students with a movement impediment in majority assess that the offices are totally accessible (40,4%), as well as students with visual impairment (56,3%) and persons with chronic problems (63,6).

Persons with other disabilities assess the offices in majority to be partially accessible.

These variation in assessment are in statistical sense are important.

Accessibility of administrative services

In the category of “totally inaccessible” there is the largest percent of students with movement impediment and students from the “other” group (29,2% each ).

It is interesting that in opposite assessment (totally accessible), also dominate students with movement impediment, with students with chronic problems (with 29,9,% each).

In this case persons with movement impediment also in majority consider that administrative services are totally accessible (54,2%), as well as students with visual impairment (59,4%) and persons with chronic problems (59,1%).

Availability of orientation signs

All categories unanimously in large percent answer that equipment for helping the orientation of visually impaired are unavailable.

Dormitories

Like in question about dormitory accessibility, as well as the accessibility of faculties, majority of questioned states the problem of physical accessibility (88 persons or 50%) .

Next category is accommodation of the facilities to the persons with visual impairment (10 persons or 6%),

Followed by improvement of hygiene category (9 persons or 5%), 2 persons (1,1%) stated the need for the qualified staff, need for the accommodation of the canteen also 2 (1,1%) persons, need for the ambulance in the dormitory 2 persons (1,1%) and importance of the organized transport 1 person (1%).

Variation of the assessment based on the kind of disability

“Mika Mitrovic” Dormitory

Majority of questioned assessed that this dormitory is totally accessible (60,6%). Differences due to gender are not statistically important. If we look at these assessments based on a kind of disability, we can notice that not all groups in majority assess this dormitory as accessible. Large percent of students with movement impediment (53,6%) and students with audio impairment (75%) assessed it as partially accessible. Rest of the groups in large percent assessed it as completely accessible. But these differences in percent are not statistically important.

Rest of the dormitories was assessed on the basis of the choice of the questioned students. That is to say, we asked the participants to name a dormitory, for which they think that is by parameters of accessibility differs from others and to assess it by similar criteria. For that reason the number of participants who assessed following dormitories is relatively small to get precise statistical analysis, and respectively valid conclusions. We can only speak about trends on assessment.

“Studentski grad” dormitory

This dormitory is also assessed as completely accessible (64,7%). There is no statistical difference in assessment by gender. Having in view kinds of disabilities of questioned, only students in the category “others” in equal measure assessed this dormitory as totally accessible and partially accessible, while in other categories dominates total accessibility.

“Patris Lumumba” dormitory

Majority assesses that this dormitory is totally inaccessible, yet in this case we have to take in consideration small frequencies. We have no basis to bring conclusion on differences of assessment based on gender neither type of disability.

“4. april” dormitory

Majority assessed it as totally accessible (52,4%). There is no difference in assessment by gender. Looking at the type of disability we see the following trend:  the worst marks were given by students with movement impediment (62,5 totally inaccessible), following by students with chronic problems (57,1% assessed it partially inaccessible), while the students with visual impairment, combined problems and “other” category assessed it as totally accessible.

“Karaburma” dormitory

Majority assessed it as partially accessible (66,7%). There is no difference in assessment by gender, but the frequency is so small for bringing the precise conclusions. Classified by the type of disability, one can see the same trend: majority of the groups assesses it as partially accessible, except the group of students that have movement impediment whom in the same way assessed it as totally or partially inaccessible.

Dormitory “Kralj Aleksandar I”

(Former “Ivo Lola Ribar”)

In general it is assessed as totally accessible (66,7%). We cannot speak about differences in assessment by gender or types of disability.

“Rifat Burdzevic” dormitory

It is assessed as partially accessible (66,7%). Very small frequency doesn’t allow us bringing any conclusion about percentage by gender or type of disability.

Dormitory of Theological faculty

It is assessed that it is totally accessible (66,7%). From the assessment by types of disability, we can see that the acquired data is a result of the assessment of students with chronic problems and students from the “other” category.

“Kosutnjak” dormitory

It is assessed that it is totally accessible (66.7%). Result is based on an assessment of students with chronic problems.

“Dobrila Stambolic” dormitory

From one of the questioned it is assessed as completely inaccessible. The questioned was from the group of students with movement impediment.

Dormitory of the Law faculty in Nis

Majority assessed it as completely inaccessible (66.7%). Due to a small number of questioned we can’t speak about the difference in gender. Considering the type of disability, the following trend can be seen: by the students with movement impediment and combined disabilities it assessed as totally inaccessible, while other groups assessed it in majority as partially accessible. 

Dormitory of Medical faculty in Nis

It is assessed that is partially accessible (66,7%). Students with combined problems assessed it completely inaccessible, while students with visual impairment and chronic problems consider it partially accessible.

Dormitory of Faculty of Electronic in Nis

Was assessed from one questioned as partially accessible. Questioned is from the group of students with chronic problems.

Extremely interesting is the fact that almost all of the dormitories in are assessed as either completely accessible or partially accessible, which is not according to the real situation on the field. None of the dormitories is obeying any standards of accessibility, even “Mika Mitrovic” dormitory, which is the special purpose dormitory. Not getting into the discussion of the fact that the existence of this dormitory is far from the principle of inclusive education, there is need to point to the fact that only the ground floor of this dormitory is partially accessible, including the student mess. Floors (rooms and the operator room), student club, sport grounds, laundry services, toilets, even the approach to the dormitory and surrounding area of the dormitory does not fulfill the basic standards of accessibility  and universal design. Stated results are acquired by the assessment of dormitories, in general, by the students who don’t have movement impediments. Wheelchair users, as also the students with other movement impediments, in most cases didn’t even have opportunity to access the accessibility. So, although they are the most relevant for this assessment, they couldn’t participate in it. 

Accessibility of curricula

Accessibility of lectures and equipment

When they are focused by questions to the subject of the lectures and equipment the majority of questioned sees the need for introducing the equipment for the persons with visual impairment (65 questioned, or 37%). Next category, by frequency, is flexibility of lectures (61 questioned, or 35%). Smaller numbers of questioned sees the need of equipment that makes lectures accessible for persons with audio impairment (25 persons, or 14%). Next category is physical access of classrooms and laboratories ( 13 persons, 7%), and one of questioned mentions the access of information about the faculties over the internet.

Conformability of lectures and equipment

Questioned students in majority consider partially accommodated (59,9%). There is no statistical difference by gender. Questioned in all categories of disability in majority assess lectures equally as partially accessible.

To the question about the importance of certain forms of assistance for studies questioned answer as followed:

-         Importance of transportation sees the 37,6% of question, between whom the majority of students is with movement impediment. From that group of students 66,8% pinpoints the importance of providing the transportation to ease their studies, while students from the other groups are not mentioning this option, but they give priority to other kinds of assistance. There is no significant difference by gender.

-         26,5% of questioned pronounce on the importance of non-personal assistance. It interesting that none of the groups sees this type of assistance as important. There are no differences by gender.

-           Importance of providing the adequate equipment sees 31,8%. There is no difference by gender.

Looking at the types of disability, only in the group of students with visual impairment predominates the assessment that this kind of assistance is important (65,6%), while other groups in majority are not stating this option. These differences in percent are also statistically important.

-         Importance of physical accessibility of faculties states 38,2% of questioned. Judging by the type of disability, the majority of those students are students with movement impediment (58,3% students from this group sees this kind of assistance as important, while other groups in the majority are not choosing this option). Stated difference in assessment is statistically important.

-         The largest number questioned sees as the most desirable kind assistance providing the scholarships / financial aid (81,2%). There are no noticeable differences either by gender or type of disability.

-         Questioned were asked to state any other kind of assistance that is not mentioned above and they consider it important. But 94,7% of questioned didn’t state any other kind of assistance.

Conformability of taking the exams and assessment

To the question are the examinations and other types of assessment accommodated to all of the student, answer are concentrated around the mid ranges: the answer “in some cases” appeared 37,4% and “in majority of cases” 39,8%. There is no difference in assessment by young people of different gender. Considering the type of disability, it seems that most difficulties have students with combined disabilities, because they assess that the staff never accommodate their examinations (35,7%). Students with movement impairment, audio impairment and from the “other” group in majority assess that professors and the academic staff are seldom adjusting, while other groups consider that professors adjust in majority of cases. Although, the differences are statistically negligible.

We asked the questioned is the academic staff ready to accept differences of students with disabilities, and to adjust, and their assessment is encouraging – majority thinks that the large number of professors and professor assistants are willing to take into the account the specific needs of this group (50,9%). There no difference in gender in this assessment. Taken into view the groups disability, we see that students with movement impediment, audio impairment and those in “other” group in majority think that not many professors and their assistance are ready to accommodate, hence we can assume that their experiences are worse than those students for other groups. Students from visual impairment and chronic problems in majority consider that substantial numbers of academic staff are ready to accommodate. These differences are statistically important.

III        Relations of Professors and colleagues toward students with disability.

Professor’s approach

1. During the lectures and exercises – Majority of questioned considers that, in cases of accepting the peculiarity of persons with disabilities, academic staff does by flexibility of their approach (allowing the deviation from the standard procedures) – 60 questioned or 34%. Three of the questioned (2%), as a form of accommodation staff towards students with disability on their faculty states providing of additional help.

2. During examination – As in the former case, substantial number of questioned considers that the academic staff accept specific needs of students with disability and the situation, flexibility of their approach (57 questioned, or 33%). Just one questioned have the experience of professor who introduced “equipment to help persons with visual impairment”, while two students (1%), as a kind of accommodation of professors toward students with disability in examination they see lowering the criteria. Problem of lowering the criteria is for students with disability are leading us to believe that there is are still stereotypes about persons with disability as different, helpless in comparison  to others, and then with students with disabilities there is a question if they are equal to the others, so, with equal opportunities, but with equal expectations and obligations. On the other side, stated results show that the academic staff that accommodated to the students with disabilities with the flexibility of their approach. And with professors open for the particularity of persons with disability sill don’t have an idea about introducing the means which will ease the studies for this population. 

When the direct relations of professors and students are the subject it should be mentioned that:

As many as 77,1% questioned states that they have never been discriminated by the professors or administrative staff. There is no difference in gender here. If we look ate the type of disability it is noticeable that the students with audio impairment in the vast majority consider that the have been discriminated (80%), while in the other groups there is predominating belief that they haven’t been discriminated. This difference is statistically important.

We wanted to check if our subjects think they were in any way privileged in the eyes academic or administrative staff compared to the other students, because we also consider this a form of discrimination, in that way that then the students with disability are not treated equally to the other students.

73,4% answered that they haven’t been privileged. There are no significant differences in either gender or type of disability.

Relations of colleagues on the faculty could be presented by following:

-         Readiness of students to assist on entering the faculty

Questioned in majority consider that the large number of students predominantly students are ready to help in those situations (59%). There are no significant differences in either gender or type of disability.

-         Readiness of students to help disabled students to transverse on the faculty

Readiness to this kind of assistance is assessed same as the former (54,2% considers that the colleagues are ready to help). There are no statistical differences by gender. Looking at the type of disability, only students with audio impairment consider that the not many colleagues are willing to help (50%), while other groups majority consider that the large number of students predominantly students are ready to help. This difference is statistically unimportant.

-         Readiness of students to assist on going to toilette

38,6% thinks that many students would assist in this situation, while 34,3% considers that not many students would assist in this situation. There are no statistical differences by gender. Looking at the type of disability, only students with audio impairment and students from the ‘other’ group have slightly worse experience how predominantly not many students would help in this situation (50%, respectively 48%). Questioned form the other groups majority consider that the large number of students predominantly students are ready to help. This difference is statistically unimportant.

-         Readiness of students to help disabled students in orientating around the faculty

Also when this is in question majority thinks that colleagues are willing to assist (50%). There are no statistical differences by gender. Again the assessment of students with audio impairment differs, whose assessment equally balances the opinion that many, respectively, not many colleagues are willing to help in this case. This difference is statistically unimportant.

-         Readiness of students to assist in gathering of information

Dominating assessment is that majority of students are willing to provide this kind of help (46,7%). Yet, even 32,3% states that all of them are ready to help in this field. Differences in gender and type of disability are not statistically important.

-         Readiness of students to assist in studying

When this issue is the subject, majority of the questioned have stated negative experiences and expectations, in comparisons to the former situation. 44% of the questioned considers that the small number of colleagues is ready to assist, while 33.9% states that they can count on a larger numbers of colleagues. Differences in gender are non-existent. Only students with visual impairment think in majority that the larger number of colleagues are ready to help in studying (39, 4%), and in the group with chronic problems frequencies are equal in smaller number / larger number ready to help. In all of the other groups dominates the assessment that the smaller number of colleagues is ready to help in studying. Differences are not statistically important.

To get the better picture of the level of distinction of social distance, we asked our questioned who much are their colleagues ready to participate in joint activity, which does not include assistance, but the more direct approach to acceptance, connection, and social involvement in to the group.

-         Readiness of colleagues to study with them

Majority of the questioned considers that colleagues are often ready to study together (51,8%). Differences by gender are not important. Just the students from the combined disability group considers that majority of colleagues are seldom ready for studying together (50%), while in all other groups dominates the feeling that the colleagues are often ready to study together. Difference is not statistically important.

- Readiness of colleagues to socialize on the faculty

45,9% questioned considers that their colleagues are often ready for socializing, while even 42,4% are considering  that they are always ready. There are no differences by gender. Students with chronic problems and with combined disability think in majority that they are always ready for socializing, while other groups think they are often ready.

These differences are not important.

-         Readiness of colleagues to socialize independent of faculty

Majority of the questioned considers that colleagues are often ready to this kind of socializing (36,6%). 34,3% are considering  that they are always ready to this kind of activity. It is interesting that for the first time there is significant statistical difference by gender. Females experienced that the colleagues are more often ready for socializing off the faculty (43,5%), opposite to male experience (majority thinks that colleagues seldom ready to socialize 36,3%). While differences on a base of type of disability is concerned, only group with combined disabilities considers that colleagues are seldom ready to socialize (42,9%). This difference is not important.

We wanted to check with questioned have they been discriminated of privileged from their colleagues.

-         83,7% considers that they haven’t been discriminated, while there are no considerable difference by gender or type of disability.

-         74,9% answered that the were not privileged form their colleagues. Also there is no significant difference by gender or type of disability.

We were also interested for an opinion of students with disabilities which factors they see as important in function of suppression of discrimination, and achieving the better relations between the students, academic staff and colleagues and students with disability. Here is how questioned assess offered solutions:

-         Education – 61% of the questioned states that that would be an important measure. There are no differences in answers of both genders. Looking at the type of disability, only students from the “other” group are not choosing this option in majority. This difference is statistically unimportant.

-         Changes in legislation – half of the questioned who choose these activities as important for the change of their situation on the faculty.  There are no differences in answers of both genders. Looking at the type of disability, only students from the movement impediment and combined disability group are choosing this option in majority. This difference is statistically unimportant.

-         Integration programs – a bit more then a half of the sample chooses this type of activity as important (51,2%). There are no differences in answers of both genders. Looking at the type of disability, students from the movement impediment (52,1%) and visual impairment (51,5%) and chronic problems (56,8%) group are choosing this option in majority. This difference is statistically unimportant.

Majority of questioned students lives in dormitories (44%), and generally with roommates. 33% in their own house with parents, and 13% in the rented apartments.

This kind of distribution of living places is conditioned by financial state (53%) , in 11% of cases stated that they like to live with their family, while just 5% stated that they do it because of accessibility of the living space.

So, choice of living conditions are much more constrained by financial state, than on accessibility. The sum of all answers is less then 100% because not all of the questioned answered to this question.

Status while studying:

-     Budget financing student status has 68% of questioned. There is no significant difference in gender or type of disability.

-     Regular student status has 34,9% of the questioned. There are no differences by gender. Regular student statuses in majority of cases have students with audio impairment (60%) and from the group with combined disability (71,4%). This difference is statically important. Maybe it tells us that the other groups of students with disability have difficulties in acquiring this status because of lesser accessibility of curricula or physical obstacles.

-         Self-financing status has 16,9% of the questioned. There is no significant difference in gender or type of disability.

-         3,5%of the questioned are part- time students. It is a small frequency to look for the difference in gender or type of disability.

While, as a possible answer we offered: evening school, studying by mail, weekend classes, studying over the internet and other, there were no answer in those categories. Some of these methods are present in the countries of the region, where researches are also being done.

The last two aspects of the research focused on the reasons of breaks in their studies and their way of choosing the faculty.

Reasons for breaks – The majority of students, if they had made it, made the beak for health reasons, (54 questioned, or 31%). We can ask ourselves if those breaks would be shorter, or maybe even nonexistent, if the curricula was accommodated to the needs of the students with disability. Next most frequent reason has nothing to do with disability, and it is less studying than it is required by the faculty (12 questioned). Five questioned (3%) states family problems as a reason. Three students (2%) stated lack of understanding from the professors and also three gave financial reasons or working and additional job as a reason for a break. Two of the questioned mentioned personal problems, while one stated administrative problems and one parallel studying as the reason.

Choice of faculty – Majority of the questioned (149 or 85%) specifies as a motive for their choice of that particular faculty their personal interest in that subject. Only 10 questioned (6%) stated that their main motive was accessibility of that faculty, which means that their choice was limited by their disability. Four of the answers (2%) were put into the “other” category since they were not very clear.