Assessing the Impact of Educational Infrastructural Support Systems on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Kenyan Public Universities

Authors

Roseline Onego, PhD

Department of Public Administration Studies, Kampala International University (Uganda)

Sa’ad, Tajuddeen, Ph.D

Department of Applied Psychology, Kampala International University (Uganda)

Article Information

DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1304000215

Subject Category: Education

Volume/Issue: 13/4 | Page No: 2518-2523

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-04-22

Accepted: 2026-04-28

Published: 2026-05-16

Abstract

The inclusion of Students with Disabilities (SWDs) in higher education is a critical metric of social justice and alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 4. While legislative frameworks in Kenya mandate inclusive education, the extent to which physical and technological infrastructure facilitates or hinders academic participation remains under-explored. Objective: This study investigated the influence of educational infrastructural support systems on the educational inclusion of SWDs in public universities in Kenya. Methodology: Adopting a pragmatic research philosophy, the study utilized a cross-sectional survey design across six chartered public universities. Data were collected from 318 SWDs using structured questionnaires and triangulated with semi-structured interviews with disability coordinators and observational audits. Descriptive statistics and simple linear regression analysis were employed to test the relationship between infrastructure availability and inclusion. Results: The study established a statistically significant positive relationship between educational infrastructure and inclusion (β=.357,p<.001). However, the overall availability of essential infrastructure was critically low (Composite Mean = 2.01). Specific deficits were identified in alternative transportation, affordability of assistive technology (AT), and access to non-classroom facilities. Qualitative data highlighted a dichotomy between modern, accessible facilities and historic buildings that remain exclusionary. Conclusion: While infrastructure acts as a significant predictor of inclusion, current provisions are inadequate to meet the diverse needs of SWDs. The prevailing environment creates physical barriers that contravene the Social Model of Disability, shifting the locus of disability from individual impairment to institutional failure. Implications: The findings necessitate a paradigm shift from piecemeal adjustments to Universal Design principles in university infrastructure planning. Policy interventions must prioritize the retrofitting of legacy buildings and the subsidization of assistive technologies.

Keywords

Educational Inclusion, Students with Disabilities, Public Universities, Kenya, Infrastructural Support, Assistive Technology, Accessibility.

Downloads

References

1. Barrett, P. (2019). The impact of school infrastructure on learning. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2011). Business Research Methods (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Edwards, M., et al. (2022). Physical barriers in the postsecondary environment for students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Githinji, P. (2013). Barriers to access to inclusive education for persons with disabilities in universities in Kenya. [Unpublished thesis]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ireri, B., et al. (2020). Inclusive education in Kenya: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Schuelka, M. J. (2017). The cultural production of the "disabled" person in Bhutan. Disability & Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. UN. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles