“Messy Inclusion”: A Call for Dignity of Risk in Inclusive Postsecondary Education

Abstract

As inclusive postsecondary education (IPSE) programs emerge and expand across the United States, many young people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have access to higher education for the first time. To support growth and identity development, students with IDD should have access to all aspects of college life (e.g., activities, relationships, opportunities). Furthermore, students with IDD should have the freedom to take emotional, physical, and intellectual risks relative to those of their peers without disabilities. This leading edge article is written by practitioners and researchers with and without disabilities associated with the University of Missouri St. Louis IPSE program, Succeed. To center the voices of persons with disabilities, any direct quotations are in italics. In this article, we advocate for increased dignity of risk in IPSE, present a model to assess and make programmatic decisions regarding dignity of risk in IPSE, and highlight five philosophical values that guide our work toward “messy inclusion.”

A Conceptual Framework for Enabling Risk in Inclusive Postsecondary Education Programs

“…The conceptual framework is based on The Model of Dignity of Risk in IPSE (see Figure 1) developed by Bumble et al (2021). The Model of Dignity of Risk in IPSE (Bumble et al, 2021) was developed by a team of researchers, IPSE program staff, and people with disabilities who have experience in IPSE.…”

“…The conceptual framework is based on The Model of Dignity of Risk in IPSE (see Figure 1) developed by Bumble et al (2021). The Model of Dignity of Risk in IPSE (Bumble et al, 2021) was developed by a team of researchers, IPSE program staff, and people with disabilities who have experience in IPSE. Literature about IPSE (Francis et al, 2018; Jones et al, 2015) and dignity of risk (Perske, 1972; Schloss et al, 1993; Wiesel et al, 2020) also informed the model.…”

“…Literature about IPSE (Francis et al, 2018; Jones et al, 2015) and dignity of risk (Perske, 1972; Schloss et al, 1993; Wiesel et al, 2020) also informed the model. The model outlines a continuum of risk with four levels: manufactured, programmed, managed, and authentic risk (see Bumble et al, 2021). To determine the level of risk, IPSE programs should consider the context, level of student choice, supports and services, and consequences of the risk (Bumble et al, 2021).…”

“…The model outlines a continuum of risk with four levels: manufactured, programmed, managed, and authentic risk (see Bumble et al, 2021). To determine the level of risk, IPSE programs should consider the context, level of student choice, supports and services, and consequences of the risk (Bumble et al, 2021).…”

“…The most restrictive level of risk is manufactured, in which students complete modified activities in segregated settings, have limited choices, access only IPSE-specific supports, and have limited opportunities for consequences (Bumble et al, 2021). For example, students who live in a separate building on campus, do not have any say in who they live with, receive supports that only exist for the IPSE program, and follow specific rules that do not apply to other university students (e.g., curfews, room checks), would experience manufactured risk.…”