Inequality Amplified: How Technological Hindrances Deepen Educational Disparities for Learners with Differential Abilities in Ghana

Inequality Amplified: How Technological Hindrances Deepen Educational Disparities for Learners with Differential Abilities in Ghana | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Inequality Amplified: How Technological Hindrances Deepen Educational Disparities for Learners with Differential Abilities in Ghana Simon-Peter Kafui Aheto, Joseph Kwame Sasu, Josephine Lutaaya Najjemba, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7780740/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 13 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper explores the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students with disabilities face in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education in Ghana and how disability, gender, socioeconomics and other factors affect their technology experiences. This qualitative study examined students' attitudes on assistive technology and inclusive education through focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Twenty-three disabled students from two Ghanaian public universities were selected to reflect disability type, gender, socioeconomic level and other characteristics. The Intersectionality Framework was utilized to analyse the study to understand how many social identities and oppressive systems affect marginalization. This view acknowledges that humans have many, interconnected social identities that reflect power and inequality. This study indicated that disabled students in Ghanaian institutions experience multi-faceted impediments to assistive technology and inclusive education. Others include expensive device costs, ownership and lack of financing assistance that limit assistive technology availability. Architecture and transportation also limit campus accessibility. Attitudes produce biased learning environments, whereas institutional impediments include disability ignorance and inclusive practises. Researchers recommend expanding government and commercial funding for assistive technologies, especially free and affordable ones, to decrease financial obstacles for disabled individuals. They also suggested expanding inclusive pedagogy and universal design for learning teacher training and professional development. Disability Differential abilities Ghana Inequalities and Inclusive education Introduction Inclusive education has gained increasing global attention as an essential right for all learners and a core component of equitable quality education. Inclusive education philosophies emphasize that all students should learn together in mainstream classrooms, with individualized supports tailored to their needs (Ainscow, 2020 ; United Nations, 2015 ). Inclusive pedagogies aim to eliminate discriminatory attitudes and institutional barriers that segregate and exclude learners with disabilities and special needs (Kamran et al., 2023 ; Armstrong et al., 2011). Technology must always be leveraged upon to make teaching and learning easier, affordable, barrier-free and fun. According to Aheto, Sasu and Arkorful ( 2025 ) “every education, especially, technology enhanced learning focus on student experiences that will bring about authentic learning” (p.6). A key enabler of inclusive education is assistive technology (AT), which encompasses the devices, equipment, hardware and software that help students with disabilities access learning and demonstrate their capabilities (Alper & Raharinirina, 2006 ; Smith, 2022 ; Yenduri et al., 2023 ). AT includes paper-based communication boards, high-tech computing devices, software and mobile apps. AT tools help students with sensory, mobility, communication, cognitive and other disabilities learn, finish assignments, socialize and attain independence. (Jacobs et al., 2019 ). Students with severe disabilities can succeed in regular education classrooms and schools with AT supports (Istenic Starcic & Bagon, 2014 ) due to the technological empowerment tahe comes with the digital age (Arkorful, Barfi, Aheto & Ayensu). While inclusive education had made progress globally, substantial barriers to access and equity persist for many students with disabilities (United Nations, 2020 ). The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated educational disparities, as remote learning highlighted gaps in AT availability, training for teachers on inclusive pedagogies and other accessibility challenges (UNESCO, 2022 ). In many educational settings, attitudinal discrimination, physical hurdles and lack of accommodations hinder disabled students' learning and social inclusion (Carew et al., 2019 ; Mutanga & Walker, 2017 ). In low and middle-income countries like Ghana, inclusive education for children with disabilities has historically been lacking due to policy frameworks and resources. (Anwar, 2017 ; Asamoah et al., 2023 ). Deku and Vanderpuye ( 2017 ) discovered that despite Ghana's 2006 Persons with Disability Act, schools lack accessibility, assistive technology and teacher capability to help special needs children. There are also gaps between disability non-discrimination laws and on-the-ground implementation (Naami & Hayashi, 2012 ). While prior studies have examined broad challenges, there remains limited research on the specific technological and attitudinal barriers students encounter in Ghana and how intersections of disability, gender, socioeconomics and other factors shape their experiences. There is a need for more student-centered perspectives to illuminate these complex barriers and inform policy improvements (Anderson & Rivera Vargas, 2020 ). The present study aims to address these knowledge gaps that exist with assistive technology and inclusivity in Ghana. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students with disabilities face in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education in Ghana. A second purpose was to explore how intersections of disability, gender, socioeconomics and other factors shape students' technology experiences. Research Questions 1. What are the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students with disabilities encounter in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education in Ghana? 2. How do intersections of disability, gender, socioeconomic status and other factors shape students' experiences and access to assistive technology in Ghana? 3. What changes to policy, practice and technology implementation do students identify as needed to improve assistive technology access and usability for learners with disabilities in Ghana? Methods This qualitative study utilised focus groups and semi-structured interviews to explore students' perspectives and experiences related to assistive technology and inclusive education. Qualitative methods enabled an in-depth understanding of the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students encounter, as well as the complex intersections that shape access (Creswell & Poth, 2018 ). Participants were 23 students with disabilities from two universities in Ghana, purposively sampled to represent diversity in disability type, gender, socioeconomic status and other factors. Inclusion criteria required participants be over age 18 and have one or more disclosed disabilities. Researchers conducted recruitment through disability support offices at the universities and snowball sampling, an approach suitable when accessing hard-to-reach or vulnerable groups (Dosek, 2021 ). Data collection involved two focus group discussions with 7–9 participants each, following best practices such as establishing ground rules and employing experienced moderators (Prosser et al., 2023 ; Kan & Abedin, 2022) Focus groups elicited collective perspectives on barriers and supports. Researchers also conducted semi-structured interviews with each participant, using an interview guide approach to explore individual experiences in detail while also allowing flexibility to pursue emerging topics (Kallio et al., 2016 ). Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a rigorous qualitative technique to identify patterns and themes (Braun, Clarke & Hayfield, 2015). Transcripts were coded inductively and iteratively refined into subthemes and overarching themes. Analysis incorporated strategies to enhance trustworthiness like peer debriefing and negative case analysis (Mai & Baker, 2017 ; Min et al., 2020). The sample demographics enabled analysis of how intersections of variables like disability type, gender and socioeconomics shaped the themes. Reviewed Literature Benefits of Inclusive Education Inclusive education cultivates academic, social-emotional and post-school benefits for students with and without disabilities. Academically, a systematic review by Oh-Young and Filler ( 2015 ) found students with disabilities educated in general education classrooms Scored higher on academic assessments compared to segregated settings. Inclusion raises expectations and requires rigorous curriculum that meet general education standards, improving reading, critical thinking and knowledge application. (Hogue & Abernathy, 2022 ; Livak et al., 2022 ). Socially, inclusive environments provide opportunities for meaningful friendships and enhanced social competence for students with disabilities through everyday interactions with peers (Wiener & Tardif, 2004 ). A meta-analysis by Katz and Mirenda ( 2002 ) found students with developmental disabilities in inclusive classrooms had larger social support networks compared to special education settings. Inclusive education also reduces bullying and stigma, countering negative attitudes (Schwab et al., 2015 ). Long-term, students with disabilities who are included have improved post-school outcomes in employment, independent living and postsecondary education compared to segregated settings (Sun & Ho, 2023 ; Varkas, 2022 ). These adult transition outcomes are facilitated through greater access to general curriculum and higher expectations (Overbury et al., 2021 ). Global frameworks like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Sustainable Development Goals uphold equal opportunity and non-discrimination, which inclusive education represents (United Nations, 2015 , 2016). According to US court rulings, students with disabilities have a civil right to education in the least restrictive environment (Harrison, 2021 ). Beyond legal obligations, ethical rationales posit that inclusive education enables social justice and reduces marginalization for vulnerable groups (Sasu et al., 2025 ). Benefits of Assistive Technology Assistive technology (AT) provides critical supports that allow students with disabilities to benefit from inclusive education. AT tools tailor instruction and enable meaningful participation, facilitating academic, functional and socioemotional growth. Research shows AT helps students with disabilities access curricula and demonstrate their capabilities more equitably (Edyburn, 2013 ). For example, audio books and read-aloud software assist students with reading difficulties, while word prediction reduces writing barriers (Wood et al., 2018 ). Physical AT like adjustable desks accommodate different bodies and mobilities (Florian, 2014 ). AT for communication, from picture boards to speech generating devices, enables participation for students with complex needs (Light & McNaughton, 2015 ). AT is inherently individualized to each student’s requirements and integrated into classroom activities (Patti & Garland, 2018 ). Students can gain learning, mobility, communication and time and organizational management independence with AT. Word prediction software helps children with learning difficulties write better by correcting spelling and decreasing keystrokes. (Wood et al., 2018 ). AT tools are linked to improved academic performance including scores, assignment completion rates, class participation for diverse disability groups (McNicholl et al., 2021 ; Peremel et al., 2017). Socially, AT facilitates peer interactions and inclusion in both academic and extracurricular activities (Juvonen et al., 2021). By removing barriers, AT allows fuller realization of potential. AT accessibility is essential for inclusive education. However, worldwide access and use discrepancies remain. Technological, behavioral and policy hurdles must be overcome to create more inclusive learning environments where all students can succeed. Persistent Barriers to Access and Usability of Technology Students with disabilities globally encounter significant challenges to accessing and using assistive technology (AT), despite its established benefits. Financial, attitudinal, policy, training, social and infrastructure constraints exist. Financial barriers are one of the most significant obstacles globally (MacLachlan et al., 2018 ). Many low- and middle-income families and education institutions cannot afford assistive technology. Even wheelchairs and hearing aids cost more than a month's earnings. (Tebbutt et al., 2016 ). Lack of funding limits schools’ capacity to provide AT. This forces low-income learners to rely on charitable donations or parents buying equipment, worsening inequality (Chataika et al., 2012 ). Financial barriers contribute to extensive unmet AT need. The World Health Organization estimates only 1 in 10 people have access to required AT globally (WHO, 2022). Attitudinal barriers also impact access and utilization of technology by students with disabilities. Stigma and misconceptions about disability continue to foster discrimination, low expectations and exclusion in many schools (Carew et al., 2019 ; Mutanga & Walker, 2017 ). Educators may resist inclusion or lack willingness to provide accommodations like assistive technologies, seeing them as burdensome rather than necessary (Ellis & Grantham, 2016 ). Negative attitudes lead to inaccessible learning environments. Even when AT is available, staff may not fully engage it in meaningful instruction if underlying inclusion values are unaddressed (Istenic Starcic & Bagon, 2014 ). Limited training of educators on inclusive pedagogies and universal design is another barrier (Smith, 2022 ; UNESCO, 2022 ). Teachers often lack AT knowledge specific to selecting and implementing appropriate technologies tailored to diverse learner needs and curricula (Redmond et al., 2021 ). Insufficient professional development means AT is underutilized and not embedded equitably into classroom teaching and activities. Policy and leadership issues affect AT access. Legal frameworks, procurement mechanisms and standards for fair AT provision in inclusive education are lacking in many countries (WHO, 2022; Borg et al., 2011 ). Responsibility for assistive devices is often fragmented across health, education and social sectors, causing confusion and gaps (WHO, 2022). Lack of systemic coordination and resources impedes sustainable scale-up of AT. There may be gaps between progressive laws and on-the-ground implementation (Dziva et al., 2018 ; Naami & Hayashi, 2012 ). These policy barriers contribute to inequitable availability of quality, affordable AT. Infrastructure barriers like inaccessible school buildings or transport prevent utilization of devices like wheelchairs (Argyropoulos & Stamouli, 2021 ). Digital divide issues, including lack of electricity, internet, or device access in rural or poorer regions, impact use of AT software and tools (Gigli, 2015 ). Lack of technical support to maintain technologies also reduces reliability and effectiveness (Boot et al., 2017 ). Systemic, integrated approaches to financial, attitudinal, policy, infrastructure and social issues are needed to overcome persistent impediments. To address students' needs and achieve inclusive education, disability voices must be prioritized. Intersectionality Framework Intersectionality is essential to understanding how many social identities and oppressive institutions affect marginalization. Intersectionality investigates how race, class, gender, disability and other advantage and disadvantage factors affect people's lives. (Crenshaw, 1989 ; Collins & Bilge, 2016). This perspective recognizes that people have multiple, overlapping social identities that reflect interlocking structures of power and inequality. In education, taking an intersectional approach enables examining how students embody multiple marginalized or privileged identities that mutually shape their learning opportunities and barriers in holistic ways (Prior et al., 2022 ; Annamma et al., 2013 ). For students with disabilities, intersections of disability with race, gender, language status, sexual orientation and especially socioeconomic status deeply influence educational access and outcomes (Harry & Fenton, 2016 ). Socioeconomic status intersects inextricably with disability (Moodley & Graham, 2015 ). Poverty amplifies challenges accessing healthcare, assistive technology, inclusive schools and other supports for students with disabilities and their families (Filmer, 2008 ; Singal et al., 2019 ). Lower-income students with disabilities face compounded risks of exclusion. However, privilege along other axes like language or race can mediate disadvantages (Gabel & Miskovic, 2014 ). Gender and disability interact in many ways. Ableism and sexism affect societal attitudes, healthcare, assistive technologies and violence against girls and women with disabilities. Intersectionality helps explain how privilege, power and oppression interact to create unequal results for students based on their identities and conditions (Prior et al., 2022 ; Ghai, 2001; United Nations, 2012 ). However, masculinity norms that discourage help-seeking also affect support for boys and men with disabilities (Lendvai et al., 2023 ; Gibson, 2012 ). Intersectionality views disability as one part of identity that connects with other marginalization and privilege to shape life opportunities (Goodley, 2016 ). This enables understanding barriers students face not in isolation, but within interlocking social systems. It emphasizes addressing disability rights, gender equality, poverty reduction and racial justice together through inclusive policymaking (Samuels, 2021 ). Applying an intersectional lens in disability research provides a more complete analysis of the multifaceted drivers of educational disparities (Nishida & Fine, 2014 ; Gillborn et al., 2017 ). Focusing on varied student experiences highlights holistic marginalization remedies. Intersectionality provides a theoretical foundation and analytical tool for studying disability and inclusion in education and society. Needs for Student Voices in Technology Decisions Students know the obstacles and solutions needed to adopt assistive technologies fairly. Disability-related policy and practice choices have long disregarded student voices and perspectives (Browning et al., 2021 ). There is increasing recognition of the need to center students as partners and leaders in shaping inclusive education and technology accessibility. Educational research methodologies are shifting towards more participatory approaches that recognize students as competent informants on their own lives and needs (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015 ; Leeson, 2014 ). Participatory techniques empower disabled students to determine research questions, methods, analysis and application (Kramer et al., 2021). Centering student expertise ensures technology, accommodations and accessibility initiatives meet learners' needs and experiences (Coyne et al., 2021). Students have critical input on creating user-friendly, meaningful AT solutions. Their perspectives can strengthen implementation, revealing diverse needs and preferences (Schock & Lee, 2016 ; Mechling, 2007 ). Ongoing student participation in designing, customizing and evaluating AT leads to improved learning experiences (Rodriguez-Largacha et al., 2015 ; Perez & Byers, 2004 ). For example, Kalulu et al. ( 2021 ) involved students with visual impairments in Africa in codesigning an accessible science mobile app. The resulting technology had greater usability and met localized needs. At a policy level, student activism and advocacy are catalyzing system reforms towards inclusion globally (Anderson & Vargas, 2020). Movements led by people with disabilities have powerfully called for “nothing about us without us” and a seat at decision-making tables (Waldschmidt et al., 2015 ). Youth are demanding rights, shaping agendas and holding institutions accountable to enact equity (Kirshner, 2015 ; Tisdall & Punch, 2012 ). Their voices are essential for socially just, sustainable change. This qualitative study examines university students' own experiences with assistive technology and inclusivity in Ghana to fill these knowledge gaps. An intersectional approach examines how gender, disability, socioeconomics and other identity factors affect access. Student voices illuminate limitations and needed improvements to AT availability, training and inclusive pedagogies. This participatory research approach aligns with calls for “nothing about us without us” in disability policy and inclusion (Waldschmidt et al., 2015 ). Findings can raise awareness of persistent inequities and make invisible struggles visible to inform advocacy and reform. This study also responds to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ imperative for countries to consult people with disabilities in policy decisions affecting them (United Nations, 2006, Article 4.3). Given Ghana’s commitments to inclusive education, findings have potential to impact practices and fulfill the promise of quality education for all learners regardless of ability. This research adds uniquely to knowledge on enacting disability rights and inclusion in the Global South. Methods Research Design This qualitative study examined students' views on assistive technology and inclusion barriers and supports. Through deep study of human viewpoints and interpretations, qualitative approaches help explain complicated events (Creswell & Poth, 2018 ). This study investigated how students overcome technical, attitudinal, policy and other inclusion barriers. Qualitative research yielded extensive, descriptive data on these difficult challenges. The study used an interpretivist paradigm that views knowledge as subjective, located in cultural contexts and co-constructed by researchers and participants (Scotland, 2012 ). Interpretivists recognize researchers' subjectivities in qualitative research. This supports an intersectional perspective that emphasizes how multiple identities affect participants and researchers. The study incorporated participatory elements by centering students as partners in investigating barriers to inclusion and identifying potential solutions (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015 ). The qualitative process triggered practice improvement discussions. Social justice through participation empowers underprivileged groups and addresses systemic inequalities. The qualitative design examined multiple assistive technology access and inclusion barriers and facilitators. Privileging students' voices and meanings led to policy improvements to improve disability education fairness and social justice. It followed interpretivist and participative research ideas. Participants and Sampling Participants were 23 university students with disabilities and 3 administrators from two universities in Ghana. Inclusion criteria required participants to be over age 18 and have one or more disclosed disabilities. Disability types represented included physical/mobility disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment and other disabilities. Purposive sampling was utilized, which involves intentionally selecting individuals that meet the study criteria and have potential to provide information-rich cases (Etikan et al., 2016 ). Purposive sampling is appropriate for qualitative research that requires participants have specific characteristics or experiences closely related to the topics under investigation. Specifically, maximum variation sampling aimed to recruit a diverse sample across characteristics like disability type, gender, socioeconomic status and educational level (Creswell & Poth, 2018 ). This sampling approach incorporates multiple perspectives, which supports examining how the intersections of participants' identities shape their experiences with assistive technology and inclusion. Researchers recruited through disability support offices at both campuses and snowballed sampling. Each school's special education administrators were chosen to refer researchers to student participants. Snowball sampling uses social networks to reach remote people (Naderifar et al., 2017 ). This method identified extra inclusion-eligible subjects. The final sample included diversity along dimensions like gender, disability type, age, socioeconomic status and educational level. This heterogeneity enabled exploring possible differences in access, barriers and supports based on participants' social identities and backgrounds. The sampling aligned with the study's qualitative paradigm and intersectional framework. Table 1 Characteristics of Participants School Level Gender Disability Type SES Total UDG GS M F HI VI PC OI LIS MIS UIS University of Ghana 7 4 11 6 5 5 3 2 1 4 5 2 University of Education 9 3 12 5 7 5 4 2 1 6 4 2 Total 16 7 23 11 12 10 5 4 2 10 9 4 Table 2 KEY University of Ghana University of Education Undergraduate Students Graduate students Male Female Hearing impairment Visual impairment Physically Challenged Other impairments Lower Income status Middle Income Status Higer Income Status UG UE-W UDG GS M F HI VI PC OI LIS MIS HIS Data Collection Procedures This study utilised two qualitative data collection methods: focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews. Using multiple techniques allowed for triangulation and enriched the evidence collected (Gage et al., 2022 ; Hammerton & Munafò, 2021 ). Focus groups involved facilitated group discussions with 7–9 participants each. Focus groups can elicit collective perspectives and enhance data quality through participants’ exchanges with each other (Protudjer et al., 2023 ). The semi-structured format enabled flexibility for students to share diverse experiences while the moderator focused on key topics. Individual interviews were conducted with each participant. Interviews followed a semi-structured format with an interview guide that included main questions but also allowed adapting based on participants’ responses (Kallio et al., 2016 ). The one-on-one interviews elicited personal experiences and viewpoints in more depth. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, focus groups and interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom videoconferencing. Virtual qualitative data collection enables participation when in-person meetings are not possible (Archibald et al., 2019 ). Zoom retains capabilities like non-verbal and relationship building. The researchers took steps to address limitations like privacy, rapport and technical issues. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim. Detailed notes captured nonverbal behaviors and other observations. Member checking occurred whereby participants reviewed summaries of findings to confirm credibility. All procedures received university Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to uphold ethical standards. Data Analysis Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a qualitative technique that involves identifying patterns and themes within textual data (Braun, Clarke & Hayfield, 2015). Thematic analysis is a flexible approach well-suited for understanding participants' lived experiences, perspectives and meanings related to a phenomenon. Transcripts were first read thoroughly to gain immersion and a sense of the data as a whole. Dedoose software facilitated organizing and coding data efficiently. Researchers conducted inductive coding by iteratively reading transcripts line-by-line and assigning descriptive codes to meaningful segments (Elliott, 2018 ). Coding was iterative, with new codes emerging from the data. Codes were refined into categories based on common elements and relationships. Categories were further developed into broader themes and sub-themes. Themes represent major patterns that describe and organize possible observations, explain relationships and interpret aspects of the phenomenon (Vaismoradi & Snelgrove, 2019 ). Analysis incorporated strategies to enhance trustworthiness (Lemon & Hayes, 2020 ). Transcripts were double-coded by the two researchers and findings compared to establish consistent interpretation. Discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus. Peer debriefing and negative case analysis were used to refine the themes. The sample demographics enabled examining themes in relation to variables like disability type, gender, socioeconomics and education level. Thematic analysis provided a structured yet flexible approach to elucidate students' perspectives on assistive technology and inclusion in Ghana. Results Analysis revealed three major themes related to barriers students encountered in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education: financial barriers, attitudinal barriers and policy/institutional barriers. Financial Barriers Students described substantial financial obstacles to obtaining assistive technologies, including high costs of devices, lack of funding and resources and affordability issues that disproportionately affected those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Many explained that their families struggled to pay for expensive technologies like screen readers or wheelchairs, stating: "The devices are just too expensive for many of our parents. Even basic things like braille kits or glasses are out of reach." - VI 2 "My family could not afford a wheelchair for me when I was younger. I had to crawl to get around until a charity donated one when I was 10 years old."- PC "The phones and laptops with accessible software are just too expensive for me and my family." (PC- 1) "Due to budgetary constraints, we have not been able to bring on board hearing impaired specific assistive technological interventions as well as physically disabled specific assistive technologies. Extra-large keyboards and extra-large mouse for those with issues of dexterity are quite expensive” (KI-2) "The available video relay systems have been built on the American sign language (ASL) which is quite different to what we use here. So it will not be completely useful to me even if I get to use it. (HI-4)" "My wheelchair was breaking - the wheel was falling off - but I had to keep using it for a year before we could afford to fix it." (PC 1) Others discussed insufficient government funding and lack of infrastructure to subsidize costs: "Our government does not really provide AT for students. Maybe some schools get a few donated devices to share but not enough." (HI-1) Financial barriers severely limited access to essential technologies and accommodations. Students expressed that budgets constrained their academic participation, independence and prospects: "Lack of money means lack of access. Many bright students drop out because support is not there." Attitudinal Barriers Participants frequently described negative societal attitudes, stigma and stereotypes towards disability that made educational environments unwelcoming or hostile. They encountered misconceptions that they were incapable or burdens: "People think we are useless and cannot contribute anything of value because of our disability." (HI-5) "There is a common perception that investing in students with disabilities is wasting resources." (HI-7) Bullying and social isolation from peers and teachers was a common experience: "Other students mock me and exclude me from activities because of my hearing impairment. Teachers do not stop this." (HI- 4) "I often end up sitting separately at the back of lecture room because some course mates are not responsive to my challenges." (HI- 2) These attitudinal barriers contributed to a lack of belonging and discrimination that impeded success. Policy and Institutional Barriers Students identified policy and institutional barriers including lack of disability representation in decision-making, inadequate implementation of inclusive laws and standards and absence of accountability mechanisms. One student explained: “You have to wait to get your dedicated friends who would help you go up there and bring you down and all that. Some of the libraries are not accessible. Sometimes I feel like I’m a cocoa sack to be carried to the classroom.” (PC- 2) "Policies look nice on paper but there is no proper monitoring or enforcement to make sure schools give us access and AT." (HI 10) Gaps in staff training and professional development also limited capacity to support inclusion: "Some lecturers and instructors are willing to help but most lack knowledge about our needs and how to use technology well. Training is inadequate." - (KI 2) Improved legislation, resourcing, training and accessibility auditing would help address these systemic barriers. Intersections with Gender The data revealed gendered barriers shaping access to assistive technology and inclusion. Women with disabilities faced dual marginalization stemming from both ableism and entrenched sexism: "Being a woman with disability, people judge me more than men. They question if I can take care of children or home duties." (VI-5) "As a lady with visual impairment, I have had people especially men who harass me in a kind of a way. Some guys come into relationship with you because they feel you need them and want to be the center of attraction. Some actually think they are doing you a favor by being in a relationship with them. So sometimes they get surprised when they see you have a lot of loved ones around you." (VI-2) Women described greater overprotection from family that inhibited independence: "My parents kept me home more than my brother with same disability because of worry I will not find a husband." (OI- 2) However, men also encountered gendered expectations about self-reliance: "As a man you are told you cannot ask for help. This makes it harder to ask for accommodations." (PC-3) However, men also encountered gendered expectations about self-reliance: "As a man you are told you cannot ask for help. This makes it harder to ask for accommodations." (VI-4) Overall gender norms limited support seeking and autonomy. Women bore multidimensional impacts. Intersections with Socioeconomics Socioeconomic status profoundly shaped access to assistive technologies. Students from lower-income families described severe financial obstacles: "Some rich students have latest technologies, but I cannot afford even a simple magnifier for reading." (VI-5) "We often had to choose between food or purchasing assistive devices when money was short." (HI-9) However, those with more financial resources could pay privately when public provision was lacking: "My parents bought me a laptop with text-to-speech software and paid for internet. This helped me succeed." (VI- 2) Poverty compounded disability-related disadvantages while higher socioeconomic status mitigated barriers. Lack of public provision amplified inequities: "Support becomes a luxury only for those who can personally afford it rather than a basic right." (KI-1) Addressing financial barriers was vital for just inclusion of lower-income students. Discussion This study shows that Ghanaian university students with impairments encounter multiple challenges to getting assistive technologies and participating equally in education. High expenses and limited family resources to purchase technology correlate with existing studies on AT's prohibitive cost globally, especially in low-resource nations (Borg et al., 2011 ; Tebbutt et al., 2016 ). This study shows how Ghanaian pricing excludes students. Systemic difficulties across Africa include a lack of public funding and infrastructure to subsidize costs (Gutman et al.2015; Effiom & Agala, 2020 ). Attitudes of stigma, discrimination and isolation are well-documented in disability inclusion literature worldwide and in Ghana (Naami & Hayashi, 2012 ; Mutanga & Walker, 2017 ). This study provides nuanced insights into how bullying, low expectations and social distance reflect unfavorable attitudes. The study also shows how gender, socioeconomics and disability affect marginalization and AT access, supporting intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989 ; Collins & Bilge, 2016). Studies on inclusive education in Ghana emphasize institutional gaps such inadequate policy frameworks and training (Deku & Vanderpuye, 2017 ). This study emphasizes students' views on enforcement, accessibility auditing and professional growth. Including student views in policy changes promotes rights-based calls for disability participation in decision-making (Poed, 2018 ; United Nations, 2006). While the barriers described align with prior literature, this study provides novel context-specific evidence and youth perspectives from Ghana which can inform advocacy and initiatives to enhance AT access, training, infrastructure and inclusive pedagogies in this setting and beyond. Conclusions This study indicated that Ghanaian university students with impairments experience many hurdles to assistive technologies and inclusive education. High device costs and lack of funding limit AT availability. Architecture and transportation also limit campus accessibility. Attitudes produce biased learning environments, whereas institutional impediments include disability ignorance and inclusive practises. Access is further complicated by disability, gender, socioeconomics and other reasons. Women with disabilities were marginalized by gender and disability prejudices. Students from low-income households couldn't afford expensive gadgets. These intersections exacerbated digital gaps. The findings confirm global research on inclusion hurdles but give Ghanaian context (Carew et al., 2019 ; Naami & Hayashi, 2012 ). Focusing on student perspectives highlights their expertise in identifying changes including expanding faculty and staff disability awareness trainings and enhancing physical accessibility. Student-driven learning improves policy implementation (Anderson & Rivera Vargas, 2020 ). Recommendations This study suggests increasing corporate and government financing and resources for AT devices and emphasizing free and affordable technology to reduce cost barriers for low-income students (Alqahtani et al., 2021). Education institutions must also increase teacher training and professional development in inclusive pedagogies and universal design for learning (Smith, 2022 ; UNESCO, 2022 ). Intersectional approaches are needed to address gender, disability and socioeconomic marginalization (Crenshaw, 1989 ; Collins & Bilge, 2016). Policy makers and implementers should prioritize student voices in disability policy and technology evaluation (Anderson & Rivera Vargas, 2020 ) and improve physical accessibility through universal design (Iwarsson & Ståhl, 2003 ) in all educational facilities. Declarations Data Availability Statement The datasets generated analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions designed to protect participant confidentiality, as approved by the Ethics Committee for Humanities of the University of Ghana. Anonymized data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to appropriate ethical approvals and data sharing agreements that ensure participant privacy is maintained. Informed Consent Statement Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All participants were above 18 years of age and provided voluntary consent after being informed about the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Separate consent was obtained for participation in the study and for the publication of anonymized findings Consent to Participate Written informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Prior to data collection, all participants received information about the research objectives, methods, expected duration of participation, and their rights as research participants. All participants were above 18 years of age and capable of providing independent consent. The consent process followed the ethical guidelines established by the Ethics Committee for Humanities of the University of Ghana Ethical approval This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Humanities of the University of Ghana (Reference: ECH 190/23-24). All procedures were carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Consent to participate Written informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All participants were above 18 years of age and provided voluntary consent after being fully informed about the study. Consent to publish Participants provided written informed consent for the publication of their anonymized data. No identifying information about participants is included in this article. Data Availability Statement The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions to protect participant confidentiality, but anonymized data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with appropriate ethical approvals. Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. Competing Interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Joseph Sasu and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. References Aheto S-P, Sasu JK, Arkorful V. Lived Experiences: Educators’ Perspectives in Assessment Within an Online Distance Education Nursing Programme. Sage Open. 2025;15(2):1–20. Ainscow M. Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic J Stud Educational Policy. 2020;6(1):7–16. Alper S, Raharinirina S. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. J Special Educ Technol. 2006;21(2):47–64. Amin MEK, Nørgaard LS, Cavaco AM, Witry MJ, Hillman L, Cernasev A, Desselle SP. Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2020;16(10):1472–82. Anderson L, Rivera Vargas P. (2020). A critical look at educational technology from a distance education perspective. Digit Educ Rev, (37), 208–29. Annamma SA, Connor D, Ferri B. Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethn Educ. 2013;16(1):1–31. Anwar TN. (2017). Discriminatory issues for children with special needs: the case of Ghana (Master's thesis, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences). Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596. Argyropoulos VS, Stamouli VA. A systematic literature review of the factors underlying digital divide among people with disabilities. Behav Inform Technol. 2021;40(6):569–86. Arkorful V, Barfi KA, Aheto SPK, Ayensu E. Assessing the Computer Literacy Level of Distance Education Students in Ghana. Ghana Libr J. 2025;30(1):7–18. Asamoah E, Amaniampong EM, Manful E, Gyasi-Boadu N, Koomson-Yalley ENM. (2023). Using Photovoice to illuminate challenges facing children with disabilities in inclusive education in Ghana. Social Work Social Sci Rev, 24 (1). Boot FH, Owuor J, Dinsmore J, MacLachlan M. Access to assistive technology for people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2017;61(10):900–21. Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren PO, Rahman AA, Bari N, Khan AN. Assistive technology use is associated with reduced capability poverty: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. Disabil Rehabilitation: Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):112–21. Browning M, Bigby C, Douglas J. Including the voices and experiences of students with cognitive disability and high support needs: Implications for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education; 2021. Carew MT, Deluca M, Groce N, Kett M. The impact of an inclusive education intervention on teacher preparedness to educate children with disabilities within the Lakes Region of Kenya. Int J Incl Educ. 2019;23(3):229–44. Chataika T, McKenzie JA, Swart E, Lyner-Cleophas M. Access to education in Africa: Responding to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2012;27(3):385–98. Clarke V, Braun V, Hayfield N. (2015). Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods , 3 , 222–248. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons. Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. U. Chi. Legal F.; 1989. p. 139. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage; 2018. Deku P, Vanderpuye I. Towards Inclusive Education in Ghana. Online Submission; 2017. Dosek T. Snowball sampling and Facebook: how social media can help access hard-to-reach populations. PS: Political Sci Politics. 2021;54(4):651–5. Dziva C, Shoko M, Zvobgo EF. Implementation of the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Zimbabwe: A review. Afr J Disabil. 2018;7(1):1–7. Edyburn DL. Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Except Child. 2013;80(1):7–24. Effiom L, Agala F. (2020). Infrastructure and Africa’s Development: The imperative of alternative funding options. Financing Africa’s Development: Paths to Sustainable Economic Growth , 101–133. Elliott V. Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Rep. 2018;23(11):2850–61. Ellis EM, Grantham CD. Assistive technology, accommodations and perceptions of academic success for postsecondary students with disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2016;45(3):327–39. Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theoretical Appl Stat. 2016;5(1):1–4. Filmer D. Disability, poverty and schooling in developing countries: results from 14 household surveys. World Bank Econ Rev. 2008;22(1):141–63. Florian L, editor. The SAGE handbook of special education. Sage; 2014. Gabel SL, Miskovic M. Discourse and the containment of disability in higher education: An institutional analysis. Disabil Soc. 2014;29(7):1145–58. Gage SH, Sallis HM, Lassi G, Wootton RE, Mokrysz C, Smith GD, Munafò MR. Does smoking cause lower educational attainment and general cognitive ability? Triangulation of causal evidence using multiple study designs. Psychol Med. 2022;52(8):1578–86. Ghai A. Disabled women: an excluded agenda of Indian feminism. Hypatia. 2002;17(3):49–66. Gibson BE. Disability, disadvantage and the new eugenics: Feminist interrogations. Br J Social Work. 2012;42(3):437–54. Gigli MW. A review of the role of assistive robotics in the lives of people with disabilities. IEEE Trans Human-Machine Syst. 2015;45(4):485–98. Gillborn D, Rollock N, Vincent C, Ball SJ. The Black middle classes, education, racism and dis/ability: An intersectional analysis. Disabil Soc. 2017;32(7):977–91. Goodley D. Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sage; 2016. Groundwater-Smith S, Dockett SE, Bottrell D. Participatory research with children and young people. Sage; 2015. Gutman J, Sy A, Chattopadhyay S. (2015). Financing African infrastructure: Can the world deliver?. Hammerton G, Munafò MR. Causal inference with observational data: the need for triangulation of evidence. Psychol Med. 2021;51(4):563–78. Harrison K. Free, appropriate, public and educational? Screen-schooling US children with disabilities during the 2020 pandemic. J Child Media. 2021;15(1):44–8. Harry B, Fenton P. Risk in schooling: The contribution of qualitative research to our understanding of the overrepresentation of minorities in special education. Multiple Voices Ethnically Diverse Except Learners. 2016;16(1):17–28. Hogue LB, Abernathy T. (2022). Inclusion. Istenic Starcic A, Bagon S. ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special needs: Review of seven educational technology journals, 1970–2011. Br J Edu Technol. 2014;45(2):202–30. Iwarsson S, Ståhl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(2):57–66. Jacobs RJ, Hunsaker SL, Cabrera AP, Avila-John A, Chheng S. (2019). Low-cost assistive technologies for students with disabilities in the inclusive general education classroom. Int J Incl Educ, 1–16. Jerry J, Tyler A, Hicks., Kirsten R, Lansey., Jennifer A, Kurth., Lewis J, Alison Z, Kristin B, Martin A, Karrie A, Shogren., Jesse R, Pace. (2022). Predicting the Frequency and Significance of Social Contacts Across Placements: A Bayesian Multilevel Model Analysis. Research and practice for persons with severe disabilities. 10.1177/15407969221136538 Juvonen J, Lessard LM, Rastogi R, Schacter HL, Smith DS. Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychol. 2019;54(4):250–70. Kallio H, Pietilä AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(12):2954–65. Kalulu G, Haukanes H, Smuk M, Tessier N, Vangen S. Co-creating science education for visually impaired learners using mobile technology in Malawi. Disabil Global South. 2021;8(2):2441. Kamran M, Siddiqui S, Adil MS. Breaking Barriers: The Influence of Teachers’ Attitudes on Inclusive Education for Students with Mild Learning Disabilities (MLDs). Educ Sci. 2023;13(6):606. Katz J, Mirenda P. Including students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms: Educational benefits. Int J Special Educ. 2002;17(2):14–24. Kauffman JM, Burke MD, Anastasiou D. Hard LRE choices in the era of inclusion: Rights and their implications. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2023;34(1):61–72. Khan NA, Abedin S. Focus Group Discussion. Principles of Social Research Methodology. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. pp. 377–87. Kirshner B. Youth activism in an era of education inequality. Volume 2. NYU; 2015. Kramer JM, Olsen S, Mermelstein M, Balcells A, Liljenquist K. Youth with disabilities' perspectives of the environment and participation: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Child Care Health Dev. 2012;38(6):763–77. Leeson C. Asking difficult questions: Exploring research methods with children on painful issues. Int J Res Method Educ. 2014;37(2):206–22. Lemon LL, Hayes J. Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative findings: Using Leximancer for qualitative data analysis triangulation. Qualitative Rep. 2020;25(3):604–14. Lendvai L, Svastics C, Luu LAN. (2023). Here is a man. He is not blind; he is a man. – The lived experiences of masculinity among men with visual impairment. Bábeli Rend. Light J, McNaughton D. Designing AAC research and intervention to improve outcomes for individuals with complex communication needs. Augmentative Altern Communication. 2015;31(2):85–96. Livak NS, Portnyagina AM, Tihonov EA. (2022). Inclusive education of educators of educational institutions. 10.26787/nydha-2686-6846-2022-24-12-11-16 MacLachlan M, Banes D, Bell D, Borg J, Donnelly B, Fembek M, Hooks H. Assistive technology policy: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabilitation: Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):454–66. Mai CL, Baker K. Peer-assisted analysis of resident feedback improves clinical teaching: a case report. case Rep. 2017;9(1):24–7. McNicholl A, Casey H, Desmond D, Gallagher P. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabilitation: Assist Technol. 2021;16(2):130–43. Mechling LC. (2007). Assistive technology as a self-management tool for prompting students with intellectual disabilities to initiate and complete daily tasks: A literature review. Educ Train Dev Disabil, 252–69. Moodley J, Graham L. The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies. Agenda. 2015;29(2):24–33. Mutanga O, Walker M. (2017). Exploration of the academic lives of students with disabilities at South African universities: Lecturers’ perspectives. Afr J Disabil, 6. Naami A, Hayashi R. Perceptions about disability among Ghanaian university students. J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil. 2012;11(2):100–11. Naderifar M, Goli H, Ghaljaie F. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides Dev Med Educ, 14 (3). Nishida A, Fine M. (2014). Building the movement to promote equitable opportunities for higher education for students with learning disabilities: Collaboration between disability studies in education and higher education research. Learn Disabilities: Contemp J, 12(2). Nishida A, Fine M. Creating classrooms of and for activism at the intersections of class, race, ethnicity, gender and disability. Multicultural Perspect. 2014;16(1):8–11. Oh-Young C, Filler J. A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;47:80–92. Overbury RS, Huynh K, Bohnsack J, Frech T, Hersh A. A novel transition clinic structure for adolescent and young adult patients with childhood onset rheumatic disease improves transition outcomes. Pediatr Rheumatol. 2021;19:1–10. Patti AL, Garland DR. Smart technology to maximize independence for people with intellectual and developmental disability: A systematic literature review. J Intellect Disabil. 2018;22(3):269–83. Perelmutter B, McGregor KK, Gordon KR. Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2017;114:139–63. Perez J, Byers A. Other ways to win: Creating alternatives for special education students. Focus on Exceptional Children; 2004. Poed S. (2018). Student voice and educational adjustments. Palgrave Handb Educ Law Schools, 335–51. Prior L, Evans C, Merlo J, Leckie G. (2022). Sociodemographic inequalities in student achievement: An intersectional multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) with application to students in London, England. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06321 . Prosser AM, Heung LN, Blackwood L, O’Neill S, Bolderdijk JW, Kurz T. (2023). ‘Talk amongst yourselves’: designing and evaluating a novel remotely-moderated focus group methodology for exploring group talk. Qualitative Res Psychol, 1–43. Protudjer JL, Batac ALR, Merrill KA, Golding MA, Knibb RC. Guidance to enhance participant validity during virtual qualitative interviews and focus groups. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023;130(4):522–4. Redmond P, Smart V, Powell A, Albion P. Primary teachers’ self-assessment of their confidence in implementing digital technologies curriculum. Education Tech Research Dev. 2021;69:2895–915. Rodriguez-Largacha MJ, García-Flores FM, Fernandez-Sanchez G, Fernandez-Heredia A, Millan MA, Martinez JM, Bernaldo MO. Improving student participation and motivation in the learning process. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract. 2015;141(1):04014005. Samuels EJ. Six ways of thinking about disability: Intersectional approaches in disability studies and law. U Mich JL Reform. 2021;53:503. Sasu JK, Ogunyemi AA, Quaicoe JS, Bauters M, Aheto S-PK. Ethics surrounding artificial intelligence-powered assistive technologies used by people with visual and hearing impairments: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology; 2025. Schock RE, Lee EA. (2016). Children's voices: perspectives on using assistive technology. Exceptionality Educ Int, 26 (1). Schwab S, Holzinger A, Krammer M, Gebhardt M, Hessels MP. (2015). Teaching practices and beliefs about inclusion of general and special needs teachers in Austria. Learn Disabilities–A Contemp J, 13(2). Scotland J. Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive and critical research paradigms. Engl Lang Teach. 2012;5(9):9–16. Singal N, Ware H, Bhayani A. Inclusive quality education for children with disabilities. The Sage handbook of inclusion and diversity in education; 2019. pp. 295–306. Smith EM. (2022). The Global Report on Assistive Technology: a new era for assistive technology. Sun SJ, Ho WS. A Follow-Up Study on the Influence of Personal, Family and School Factors on Learning Outcomes of Students with Disabilities in Senior High School. Behav Sci. 2023;13(7):554. Tebbutt E, Brodmann R, Borg J, MacLachlan M, Khasnabis C, Horvath R. Assistive products and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Globalization health. 2016;12(1):1–6. Terry G, Hayfield N, Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. SAGE Handb qualitative Res Psychol. 2017;2:17–37. Tisdall EK, Punch S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. In Critical Childhood Studies. UNESCO. (2022). The Global Education Monitoring Report. United Nations. (2012). Gender and women’s rights. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment United Nations. (2015). Sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, United Nations. Retrieved from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals United Nations. (2020). Policy Brief: A Disability-Inclusive Response to COVID-19. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2020/05/covid-19-and-persons-with-disabilities/ Vaismoradi M, Snelgrove S. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Res, 20(3). Varkas M. Teachers’ role on Social Inclusion and Employability Prospects of Students with Disabilities. Ijaedu-International E-J Adv Educ. 2022;8(23):196–200. Waldschmidt A, Karačić A, Sturm A, Dins T. Nothing about us without us disability rights activism in European countries–A comparative analysis. Mov Social. 2015;53:103–38. Wiener J, Tardif CY. Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities: Does special education placement make a difference? Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2004;19(1):20–32. Wood SG, Moxley JH, Tighe EL, Wagner RK. Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. J Learn Disabil. 2018;51(1):73–84. World Health Organization. (2022). Assistive technology. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology World Health Organization. (2022). Global report on assistive technology. Yenduri G, Kaluri R, Rajput DS, Lakshmanna K, Gadekallu TR, Mahmud M, Brown DJ. (2023). From Assistive Technologies to Metaverse–Technologies in. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Bios.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 27 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 15 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 15 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 05 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 05 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 27 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 14 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 14 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7780740","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":587621405,"identity":"5f5e59d2-0f65-4ee8-82b4-20f912242bc1","order_by":0,"name":"Simon-Peter Kafui Aheto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Simon-Peter","middleName":"Kafui","lastName":"Aheto","suffix":""},{"id":587621408,"identity":"f824fb0d-4608-4b54-ade5-78a7f3f17534","order_by":1,"name":"Joseph Kwame Sasu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joseph","middleName":"Kwame","lastName":"Sasu","suffix":""},{"id":587621409,"identity":"34e6695d-247d-450e-aaae-237187fdcf08","order_by":2,"name":"Josephine Lutaaya Najjemba","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Makerere University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Josephine","middleName":"Lutaaya","lastName":"Najjemba","suffix":""},{"id":587621411,"identity":"69f0eac1-00e4-4288-9dbe-15f751c0014a","order_by":3,"name":"Kwaku Darko Amponsah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kwaku","middleName":"Darko","lastName":"Amponsah","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-04 15:23:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7780740/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7780740/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102308313,"identity":"24a7361a-842e-44bc-8cb6-5a1d6f120669","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 11:48:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":956446,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7780740/v1/d84edc71-3305-4e6a-adf9-6d4d29684fd7.pdf"},{"id":102304412,"identity":"5d28e4d8-c5cf-4012-aaec-d3684c924256","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 11:34:50","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15697,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Bios.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7780740/v1/79261eaad5677be43cd64b3e.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Inequality Amplified: How Technological Hindrances Deepen Educational Disparities for Learners with Differential Abilities in Ghana","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eInclusive education has gained increasing global attention as an essential right for all learners and a core component of equitable quality education. Inclusive education philosophies emphasize that all students should learn together in mainstream classrooms, with individualized supports tailored to their needs (Ainscow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Inclusive pedagogies aim to eliminate discriminatory attitudes and institutional barriers that segregate and exclude learners with disabilities and special needs (Kamran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Armstrong et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology must always be leveraged upon to make teaching and learning easier, affordable, barrier-free and fun. According to Aheto, Sasu and Arkorful (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026ldquo;every education, especially, technology enhanced learning focus on student experiences that will bring about authentic learning\u0026rdquo; (p.6). A key enabler of inclusive education is assistive technology (AT), which encompasses the devices, equipment, hardware and software that help students with disabilities access learning and demonstrate their capabilities (Alper \u0026amp; Raharinirina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Yenduri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). AT includes paper-based communication boards, high-tech computing devices, software and mobile apps. AT tools help students with sensory, mobility, communication, cognitive and other disabilities learn, finish assignments, socialize and attain independence. (Jacobs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Students with severe disabilities can succeed in regular education classrooms and schools with AT supports (Istenic Starcic \u0026amp; Bagon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) due to the technological empowerment tahe comes with the digital age (Arkorful, Barfi, Aheto \u0026amp; Ayensu).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile inclusive education had made progress globally, substantial barriers to access and equity persist for many students with disabilities (United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated educational disparities, as remote learning highlighted gaps in AT availability, training for teachers on inclusive pedagogies and other accessibility challenges (UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In many educational settings, attitudinal discrimination, physical hurdles and lack of accommodations hinder disabled students' learning and social inclusion (Carew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Mutanga \u0026amp; Walker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn low and middle-income countries like Ghana, inclusive education for children with disabilities has historically been lacking due to policy frameworks and resources. (Anwar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Asamoah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Deku and Vanderpuye (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) discovered that despite Ghana's 2006 Persons with Disability Act, schools lack accessibility, assistive technology and teacher capability to help special needs children. There are also gaps between disability non-discrimination laws and on-the-ground implementation (Naami \u0026amp; Hayashi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile prior studies have examined broad challenges, there remains limited research on the specific technological and attitudinal barriers students encounter in Ghana and how intersections of disability, gender, socioeconomics and other factors shape their experiences. There is a need for more student-centered perspectives to illuminate these complex barriers and inform policy improvements (Anderson \u0026amp; Rivera Vargas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The present study aims to address these knowledge gaps that exist with assistive technology and inclusivity in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students with disabilities face in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education in Ghana. A second purpose was to explore how intersections of disability, gender, socioeconomics and other factors shape students' technology experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eResearch Questions\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. What are the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students with disabilities encounter in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education in Ghana?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. How do intersections of disability, gender, socioeconomic status and other factors shape students' experiences and access to assistive technology in Ghana?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. What changes to policy, practice and technology implementation do students identify as needed to improve assistive technology access and usability for learners with disabilities in Ghana?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMethods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis qualitative study utilised focus groups and semi-structured interviews to explore students' perspectives and experiences related to assistive technology and inclusive education. Qualitative methods enabled an in-depth understanding of the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students encounter, as well as the complex intersections that shape access (Creswell \u0026amp; Poth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were 23 students with disabilities from two universities in Ghana, purposively sampled to represent diversity in disability type, gender, socioeconomic status and other factors. Inclusion criteria required participants be over age 18 and have one or more disclosed disabilities. Researchers conducted recruitment through disability support offices at the universities and snowball sampling, an approach suitable when accessing hard-to-reach or vulnerable groups (Dosek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData collection involved two focus group discussions with 7\u0026ndash;9 participants each, following best practices such as establishing ground rules and employing experienced moderators (Prosser et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kan \u0026amp; Abedin, 2022) Focus groups elicited collective perspectives on barriers and supports. Researchers also conducted semi-structured interviews with each participant, using an interview guide approach to explore individual experiences in detail while also allowing flexibility to pursue emerging topics (Kallio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus groups and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a rigorous qualitative technique to identify patterns and themes (Braun, Clarke \u0026amp; Hayfield, 2015). Transcripts were coded inductively and iteratively refined into subthemes and overarching themes. Analysis incorporated strategies to enhance trustworthiness like peer debriefing and negative case analysis (Mai \u0026amp; Baker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Min et al., 2020). The sample demographics enabled analysis of how intersections of variables like disability type, gender and socioeconomics shaped the themes.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Reviewed Literature","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBenefits of Inclusive Education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInclusive education cultivates academic, social-emotional and post-school benefits for students with and without disabilities. Academically, a systematic review by Oh-Young and Filler (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) found students with disabilities educated in general education classrooms Scored higher on academic assessments compared to segregated settings. Inclusion raises expectations and requires rigorous curriculum that meet general education standards, improving reading, critical thinking and knowledge application. (Hogue \u0026amp; Abernathy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Livak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocially, inclusive environments provide opportunities for meaningful friendships and enhanced social competence for students with disabilities through everyday interactions with peers (Wiener \u0026amp; Tardif, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). A meta-analysis by Katz and Mirenda (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) found students with developmental disabilities in inclusive classrooms had larger social support networks compared to special education settings. Inclusive education also reduces bullying and stigma, countering negative attitudes (Schwab et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLong-term, students with disabilities who are included have improved post-school outcomes in employment, independent living and postsecondary education compared to segregated settings (Sun \u0026amp; Ho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Varkas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These adult transition outcomes are facilitated through greater access to general curriculum and higher expectations (Overbury et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal frameworks like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Sustainable Development Goals uphold equal opportunity and non-discrimination, which inclusive education represents (United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, 2016). According to US court rulings, students with disabilities have a civil right to education in the least restrictive environment (Harrison, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond legal obligations, ethical rationales posit that inclusive education enables social justice and reduces marginalization for vulnerable groups (Sasu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBenefits of Assistive Technology\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAssistive technology (AT) provides critical supports that allow students with disabilities to benefit from inclusive education. AT tools tailor instruction and enable meaningful participation, facilitating academic, functional and socioemotional growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch shows AT helps students with disabilities access curricula and demonstrate their capabilities more equitably (Edyburn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For example, audio books and read-aloud software assist students with reading difficulties, while word prediction reduces writing barriers (Wood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Physical AT like adjustable desks accommodate different bodies and mobilities (Florian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). AT for communication, from picture boards to speech generating devices, enables participation for students with complex needs (Light \u0026amp; McNaughton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). AT is inherently individualized to each student\u0026rsquo;s requirements and integrated into classroom activities (Patti \u0026amp; Garland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents can gain learning, mobility, communication and time and organizational management independence with AT. Word prediction software helps children with learning difficulties write better by correcting spelling and decreasing keystrokes. (Wood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). AT tools are linked to improved academic performance including scores, assignment completion rates, class participation for diverse disability groups (McNicholl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Peremel et al., 2017). Socially, AT facilitates peer interactions and inclusion in both academic and extracurricular activities (Juvonen et al., 2021). By removing barriers, AT allows fuller realization of potential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAT accessibility is essential for inclusive education. However, worldwide access and use discrepancies remain. Technological, behavioral and policy hurdles must be overcome to create more inclusive learning environments where all students can succeed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePersistent Barriers to Access and Usability of Technology\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents with disabilities globally encounter significant challenges to accessing and using assistive technology (AT), despite its established benefits. Financial, attitudinal, policy, training, social and infrastructure constraints exist.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial barriers are one of the most significant obstacles globally (MacLachlan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Many low- and middle-income families and education institutions cannot afford assistive technology. Even wheelchairs and hearing aids cost more than a month's earnings. (Tebbutt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Lack of funding limits schools\u0026rsquo; capacity to provide AT. This forces low-income learners to rely on charitable donations or parents buying equipment, worsening inequality (Chataika et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Financial barriers contribute to extensive unmet AT need. The World Health Organization estimates only 1 in 10 people have access to required AT globally (WHO, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttitudinal barriers also impact access and utilization of technology by students with disabilities. Stigma and misconceptions about disability continue to foster discrimination, low expectations and exclusion in many schools (Carew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Mutanga \u0026amp; Walker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Educators may resist inclusion or lack willingness to provide accommodations like assistive technologies, seeing them as burdensome rather than necessary (Ellis \u0026amp; Grantham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Negative attitudes lead to inaccessible learning environments. Even when AT is available, staff may not fully engage it in meaningful instruction if underlying inclusion values are unaddressed (Istenic Starcic \u0026amp; Bagon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited training of educators on inclusive pedagogies and universal design is another barrier (Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers often lack AT knowledge specific to selecting and implementing appropriate technologies tailored to diverse learner needs and curricula (Redmond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Insufficient professional development means AT is underutilized and not embedded equitably into classroom teaching and activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy and leadership issues affect AT access. Legal frameworks, procurement mechanisms and standards for fair AT provision in inclusive education are lacking in many countries (WHO, 2022; Borg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Responsibility for assistive devices is often fragmented across health, education and social sectors, causing confusion and gaps (WHO, 2022). Lack of systemic coordination and resources impedes sustainable scale-up of AT. There may be gaps between progressive laws and on-the-ground implementation (Dziva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Naami \u0026amp; Hayashi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). These policy barriers contribute to inequitable availability of quality, affordable AT.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure barriers like inaccessible school buildings or transport prevent utilization of devices like wheelchairs (Argyropoulos \u0026amp; Stamouli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Digital divide issues, including lack of electricity, internet, or device access in rural or poorer regions, impact use of AT software and tools (Gigli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Lack of technical support to maintain technologies also reduces reliability and effectiveness (Boot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystemic, integrated approaches to financial, attitudinal, policy, infrastructure and social issues are needed to overcome persistent impediments. To address students' needs and achieve inclusive education, disability voices must be prioritized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntersectionality Framework\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntersectionality is essential to understanding how many social identities and oppressive institutions affect marginalization. Intersectionality investigates how race, class, gender, disability and other advantage and disadvantage factors affect people's lives. (Crenshaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Collins \u0026amp; Bilge, 2016). This perspective recognizes that people have multiple, overlapping social identities that reflect interlocking structures of power and inequality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn education, taking an intersectional approach enables examining how students embody multiple marginalized or privileged identities that mutually shape their learning opportunities and barriers in holistic ways (Prior et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Annamma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For students with disabilities, intersections of disability with race, gender, language status, sexual orientation and especially socioeconomic status deeply influence educational access and outcomes (Harry \u0026amp; Fenton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocioeconomic status intersects inextricably with disability (Moodley \u0026amp; Graham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Poverty amplifies challenges accessing healthcare, assistive technology, inclusive schools and other supports for students with disabilities and their families (Filmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Singal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Lower-income students with disabilities face compounded risks of exclusion. However, privilege along other axes like language or race can mediate disadvantages (Gabel \u0026amp; Miskovic, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender and disability interact in many ways. Ableism and sexism affect societal attitudes, healthcare, assistive technologies and violence against girls and women with disabilities. Intersectionality helps explain how privilege, power and oppression interact to create unequal results for students based on their identities and conditions (Prior et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ghai, 2001; United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, masculinity norms that discourage help-seeking also affect support for boys and men with disabilities (Lendvai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Gibson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Intersectionality views disability as one part of identity that connects with other marginalization and privilege to shape life opportunities (Goodley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This enables understanding barriers students face not in isolation, but within interlocking social systems. It emphasizes addressing disability rights, gender equality, poverty reduction and racial justice together through inclusive policymaking (Samuels, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplying an intersectional lens in disability research provides a more complete analysis of the multifaceted drivers of educational disparities (Nishida \u0026amp; Fine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Gillborn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Focusing on varied student experiences highlights holistic marginalization remedies. Intersectionality provides a theoretical foundation and analytical tool for studying disability and inclusion in education and society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNeeds for Student Voices in Technology Decisions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents know the obstacles and solutions needed to adopt assistive technologies fairly. Disability-related policy and practice choices have long disregarded student voices and perspectives (Browning et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). There is increasing recognition of the need to center students as partners and leaders in shaping inclusive education and technology accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational research methodologies are shifting towards more participatory approaches that recognize students as competent informants on their own lives and needs (Groundwater-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Leeson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Participatory techniques empower disabled students to determine research questions, methods, analysis and application (Kramer et al., 2021). Centering student expertise ensures technology, accommodations and accessibility initiatives meet learners' needs and experiences (Coyne et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents have critical input on creating user-friendly, meaningful AT solutions. Their perspectives can strengthen implementation, revealing diverse needs and preferences (Schock \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mechling, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Ongoing student participation in designing, customizing and evaluating AT leads to improved learning experiences (Rodriguez-Largacha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Perez \u0026amp; Byers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Kalulu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) involved students with visual impairments in Africa in codesigning an accessible science mobile app. The resulting technology had greater usability and met localized needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt a policy level, student activism and advocacy are catalyzing system reforms towards inclusion globally (Anderson \u0026amp; Vargas, 2020). Movements led by people with disabilities have powerfully called for \u0026ldquo;nothing about us without us\u0026rdquo; and a seat at decision-making tables (Waldschmidt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Youth are demanding rights, shaping agendas and holding institutions accountable to enact equity (Kirshner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tisdall \u0026amp; Punch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Their voices are essential for socially just, sustainable change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis qualitative study examines university students' own experiences with assistive technology and inclusivity in Ghana to fill these knowledge gaps. An intersectional approach examines how gender, disability, socioeconomics and other identity factors affect access. Student voices illuminate limitations and needed improvements to AT availability, training and inclusive pedagogies. This participatory research approach aligns with calls for \u0026ldquo;nothing about us without us\u0026rdquo; in disability policy and inclusion (Waldschmidt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings can raise awareness of persistent inequities and make invisible struggles visible to inform advocacy and reform. This study also responds to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\u0026rsquo; imperative for countries to consult people with disabilities in policy decisions affecting them (United Nations, 2006, Article 4.3). Given Ghana\u0026rsquo;s commitments to inclusive education, findings have potential to impact practices and fulfill the promise of quality education for all learners regardless of ability. This research adds uniquely to knowledge on enacting disability rights and inclusion in the Global South.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis qualitative study examined students' views on assistive technology and inclusion barriers and supports. Through deep study of human viewpoints and interpretations, qualitative approaches help explain complicated events (Creswell \u0026amp; Poth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This study investigated how students overcome technical, attitudinal, policy and other inclusion barriers. Qualitative research yielded extensive, descriptive data on these difficult challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study used an interpretivist paradigm that views knowledge as subjective, located in cultural contexts and co-constructed by researchers and participants (Scotland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Interpretivists recognize researchers' subjectivities in qualitative research. This supports an intersectional perspective that emphasizes how multiple identities affect participants and researchers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study incorporated participatory elements by centering students as partners in investigating barriers to inclusion and identifying potential solutions (Groundwater-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The qualitative process triggered practice improvement discussions. Social justice through participation empowers underprivileged groups and addresses systemic inequalities. The qualitative design examined multiple assistive technology access and inclusion barriers and facilitators. Privileging students' voices and meanings led to policy improvements to improve disability education fairness and social justice. It followed interpretivist and participative research ideas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and Sampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were 23 university students with disabilities and 3 administrators from two universities in Ghana. Inclusion criteria required participants to be over age 18 and have one or more disclosed disabilities. Disability types represented included physical/mobility disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment and other disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurposive sampling was utilized, which involves intentionally selecting individuals that meet the study criteria and have potential to provide information-rich cases (Etikan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Purposive sampling is appropriate for qualitative research that requires participants have specific characteristics or experiences closely related to the topics under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, maximum variation sampling aimed to recruit a diverse sample across characteristics like disability type, gender, socioeconomic status and educational level (Creswell \u0026amp; Poth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This sampling approach incorporates multiple perspectives, which supports examining how the intersections of participants' identities shape their experiences with assistive technology and inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearchers recruited through disability support offices at both campuses and snowballed sampling. Each school's special education administrators were chosen to refer researchers to student participants. Snowball sampling uses social networks to reach remote people (Naderifar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This method identified extra inclusion-eligible subjects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final sample included diversity along dimensions like gender, disability type, age, socioeconomic status and educational level. This heterogeneity enabled exploring possible differences in access, barriers and supports based on participants' social identities and backgrounds. The sampling aligned with the study's qualitative paradigm and intersectional framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of Participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"13\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisability Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUDG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLIS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMIS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUIS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUniversity of Ghana\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity of Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e16\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e23\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKEY\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"13\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity of Ghana\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity of Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUndergraduate Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGraduate students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHearing impairment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisual impairment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysically Challenged\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther impairments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLower Income status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle Income Status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHiger Income Status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUG\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUE-W\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUDG\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eM\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eF\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLIS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMIS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHIS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study utilised two qualitative data collection methods: focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews. Using multiple techniques allowed for triangulation and enriched the evidence collected (Gage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hammerton \u0026amp; Munaf\u0026ograve;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus groups involved facilitated group discussions with 7\u0026ndash;9 participants each. Focus groups can elicit collective perspectives and enhance data quality through participants\u0026rsquo; exchanges with each other (Protudjer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The semi-structured format enabled flexibility for students to share diverse experiences while the moderator focused on key topics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual interviews were conducted with each participant. Interviews followed a semi-structured format with an interview guide that included main questions but also allowed adapting based on participants\u0026rsquo; responses (Kallio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The one-on-one interviews elicited personal experiences and viewpoints in more depth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, focus groups and interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom videoconferencing. Virtual qualitative data collection enables participation when in-person meetings are not possible (Archibald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Zoom retains capabilities like non-verbal and relationship building. The researchers took steps to address limitations like privacy, rapport and technical issues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim. Detailed notes captured nonverbal behaviors and other observations. Member checking occurred whereby participants reviewed summaries of findings to confirm credibility. All procedures received university Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to uphold ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using thematic analysis, a qualitative technique that involves identifying patterns and themes within textual data (Braun, Clarke \u0026amp; Hayfield, 2015). Thematic analysis is a flexible approach well-suited for understanding participants' lived experiences, perspectives and meanings related to a phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscripts were first read thoroughly to gain immersion and a sense of the data as a whole. Dedoose software facilitated organizing and coding data efficiently. Researchers conducted inductive coding by iteratively reading transcripts line-by-line and assigning descriptive codes to meaningful segments (Elliott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Coding was iterative, with new codes emerging from the data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCodes were refined into categories based on common elements and relationships. Categories were further developed into broader themes and sub-themes. Themes represent major patterns that describe and organize possible observations, explain relationships and interpret aspects of the phenomenon (Vaismoradi \u0026amp; Snelgrove, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis incorporated strategies to enhance trustworthiness (Lemon \u0026amp; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Transcripts were double-coded by the two researchers and findings compared to establish consistent interpretation. Discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus. Peer debriefing and negative case analysis were used to refine the themes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample demographics enabled examining themes in relation to variables like disability type, gender, socioeconomics and education level. Thematic analysis provided a structured yet flexible approach to elucidate students' perspectives on assistive technology and inclusion in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAnalysis revealed three major themes related to barriers students encountered in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education: financial barriers, attitudinal barriers and policy/institutional barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFinancial Barriers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents described substantial financial obstacles to obtaining assistive technologies, including high costs of devices, lack of funding and resources and affordability issues that disproportionately affected those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Many explained that their families struggled to pay for expensive technologies like screen readers or wheelchairs, stating:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"The devices are just too expensive for many of our parents. Even basic things like braille kits or glasses are out of reach.\"\u003c/em\u003e- VI 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"My family could not afford a wheelchair for me when I was younger. I had to crawl to get around until a charity donated one when I was 10 years old.\"-\u003c/em\u003e PC\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"The phones and laptops with accessible software are just too expensive for me and my family.\"\u003c/em\u003e (PC- 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Due to budgetary constraints, we have not been able to bring on board hearing impaired specific assistive technological interventions as well as physically disabled specific assistive technologies. Extra-large keyboards and extra-large mouse for those with issues of dexterity are quite expensive\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (KI-2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"The available video relay systems have been built on the American sign language (ASL) which is quite different to what we use here. So it will not be completely useful to me even if I get to use it. (HI-4)\"\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"My wheelchair was breaking - the wheel was falling off - but I had to keep using it for a year before we could afford to fix it.\"\u003c/em\u003e (PC 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers discussed insufficient government funding and lack of infrastructure to subsidize costs:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Our government does not really provide AT for students. Maybe some schools get a few donated devices to share but not enough.\"\u003c/em\u003e (HI-1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial barriers severely limited access to essential technologies and accommodations. Students expressed that budgets constrained their academic participation, independence and prospects:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Lack of money means lack of access. Many bright students drop out because support is not there.\"\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAttitudinal Barriers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants frequently described negative societal attitudes, stigma and stereotypes towards disability that made educational environments unwelcoming or hostile. They encountered misconceptions that they were incapable or burdens:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"People think we are useless and cannot contribute anything of value because of our disability.\"\u003c/em\u003e (HI-5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"There is a common perception that investing in students with disabilities is wasting resources.\"\u003c/em\u003e (HI-7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBullying and social isolation from peers and teachers was a common experience:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Other students mock me and exclude me from activities because of my hearing impairment. Teachers do not stop this.\"\u003c/em\u003e (HI- 4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"I often end up sitting separately at the back of lecture room because some course mates are not responsive to my challenges.\"\u003c/em\u003e (HI- 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese attitudinal barriers contributed to a lack of belonging and discrimination that impeded success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePolicy and Institutional Barriers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents identified policy and institutional barriers including lack of disability representation in decision-making, inadequate implementation of inclusive laws and standards and absence of accountability mechanisms. One student explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;You have to wait to get your dedicated friends who would help you go up there and bring you down and all that. Some of the libraries are not accessible. Sometimes I feel like I\u0026rsquo;m a cocoa sack to be carried to the classroom.\u0026rdquo; (PC- 2)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Policies look nice on paper but there is no proper monitoring or enforcement to make sure schools give us access and AT.\"\u003c/em\u003e (HI 10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGaps in staff training and professional development also limited capacity to support inclusion:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Some lecturers and instructors are willing to help but most lack knowledge about our needs and how to use technology well. Training is inadequate.\"\u003c/em\u003e- (KI 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved legislation, resourcing, training and accessibility auditing would help address these systemic barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntersections with Gender\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data revealed gendered barriers shaping access to assistive technology and inclusion. Women with disabilities faced dual marginalization stemming from both ableism and entrenched sexism:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Being a woman with disability, people judge me more than men. They question if I can take care of children or home duties.\"\u003c/em\u003e (VI-5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"As a lady with visual impairment, I have had people especially men who harass me in a kind of a way. Some guys come into relationship with you because they feel you need them and want to be the center of attraction. Some actually think they are doing you a favor by being in a relationship with them. So sometimes they get surprised when they see you have a lot of loved ones around you.\" (VI-2)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen described greater overprotection from family that inhibited independence:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"My parents kept me home more than my brother with same disability because of worry I will not find a husband.\"\u003c/em\u003e (OI- 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, men also encountered gendered expectations about self-reliance:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"As a man you are told you cannot ask for help. This makes it harder to ask for accommodations.\"\u003c/em\u003e (PC-3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, men also encountered gendered expectations about self-reliance:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"As a man you are told you cannot ask for help. This makes it harder to ask for accommodations.\"\u003c/em\u003e (VI-4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall gender norms limited support seeking and autonomy. Women bore multidimensional impacts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntersections with Socioeconomics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocioeconomic status profoundly shaped access to assistive technologies. Students from lower-income families described severe financial obstacles:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Some rich students have latest technologies, but I cannot afford even a simple magnifier for reading.\"\u003c/em\u003e (VI-5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"We often had to choose between food or purchasing assistive devices when money was short.\"\u003c/em\u003e (HI-9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, those with more financial resources could pay privately when public provision was lacking:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"My parents bought me a laptop with text-to-speech software and paid for internet. This helped me succeed.\"\u003c/em\u003e (VI- 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoverty compounded disability-related disadvantages while higher socioeconomic status mitigated barriers. Lack of public provision amplified inequities:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Support becomes a luxury only for those who can personally afford it rather than a basic right.\"\u003c/em\u003e (KI-1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing financial barriers was vital for just inclusion of lower-income students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study shows that Ghanaian university students with impairments encounter multiple challenges to getting assistive technologies and participating equally in education. High expenses and limited family resources to purchase technology correlate with existing studies on AT's prohibitive cost globally, especially in low-resource nations (Borg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Tebbutt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This study shows how Ghanaian pricing excludes students. Systemic difficulties across Africa include a lack of public funding and infrastructure to subsidize costs (Gutman et al.2015; Effiom \u0026amp; Agala, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttitudes of stigma, discrimination and isolation are well-documented in disability inclusion literature worldwide and in Ghana (Naami \u0026amp; Hayashi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Mutanga \u0026amp; Walker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This study provides nuanced insights into how bullying, low expectations and social distance reflect unfavorable attitudes. The study also shows how gender, socioeconomics and disability affect marginalization and AT access, supporting intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Collins \u0026amp; Bilge, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies on inclusive education in Ghana emphasize institutional gaps such inadequate policy frameworks and training (Deku \u0026amp; Vanderpuye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This study emphasizes students' views on enforcement, accessibility auditing and professional growth. Including student views in policy changes promotes rights-based calls for disability participation in decision-making (Poed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; United Nations, 2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the barriers described align with prior literature, this study provides novel context-specific evidence and youth perspectives from Ghana which can inform advocacy and initiatives to enhance AT access, training, infrastructure and inclusive pedagogies in this setting and beyond.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study indicated that Ghanaian university students with impairments experience many hurdles to assistive technologies and inclusive education. High device costs and lack of funding limit AT availability. Architecture and transportation also limit campus accessibility. Attitudes produce biased learning environments, whereas institutional impediments include disability ignorance and inclusive practises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess is further complicated by disability, gender, socioeconomics and other reasons. Women with disabilities were marginalized by gender and disability prejudices. Students from low-income households couldn't afford expensive gadgets. These intersections exacerbated digital gaps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings confirm global research on inclusion hurdles but give Ghanaian context (Carew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Naami \u0026amp; Hayashi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Focusing on student perspectives highlights their expertise in identifying changes including expanding faculty and staff disability awareness trainings and enhancing physical accessibility. Student-driven learning improves policy implementation (Anderson \u0026amp; Rivera Vargas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRecommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study suggests increasing corporate and government financing and resources for AT devices and emphasizing free and affordable technology to reduce cost barriers for low-income students (Alqahtani et al., 2021). Education institutions must also increase teacher training and professional development in inclusive pedagogies and universal design for learning (Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Intersectional approaches are needed to address gender, disability and socioeconomic marginalization (Crenshaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Collins \u0026amp; Bilge, 2016). Policy makers and implementers should prioritize student voices in disability policy and technology evaluation (Anderson \u0026amp; Rivera Vargas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and improve physical accessibility through universal design (Iwarsson \u0026amp; St\u0026aring;hl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) in all educational facilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions designed to protect participant confidentiality, as approved by the Ethics Committee for Humanities of the University of Ghana. Anonymized data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to appropriate ethical approvals and data sharing agreements that ensure participant privacy is maintained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All participants were above 18 years of age and provided voluntary consent after being informed about the study\u0026apos;s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Separate consent was obtained for participation in the study and for the publication of anonymized findings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Prior to data collection, all participants received information about the research objectives, methods, expected duration of participation, and their rights as research participants. All participants were above 18 years of age and capable of providing independent consent. The consent process followed the ethical guidelines established by the Ethics Committee for Humanities of the University of Ghana\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Humanities of the University of Ghana (Reference: ECH 190/23-24). All procedures were carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All participants were above 18 years of age and provided voluntary consent after being fully informed about the study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants provided written informed consent for the publication of their anonymized data. No identifying information about participants is included in this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions to protect participant confidentiality, but anonymized data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with appropriate ethical approvals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Joseph Sasu and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAheto S-P, Sasu JK, Arkorful V. Lived Experiences: Educators\u0026rsquo; Perspectives in Assessment Within an Online Distance Education Nursing Programme. Sage Open. 2025;15(2):1\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAinscow M. Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic J Stud Educational Policy. 2020;6(1):7\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlper S, Raharinirina S. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. J Special Educ Technol. 2006;21(2):47\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmin MEK, N\u0026oslash;rgaard LS, Cavaco AM, Witry MJ, Hillman L, Cernasev A, Desselle SP. Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2020;16(10):1472\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson L, Rivera Vargas P. (2020). A critical look at educational technology from a distance education perspective. Digit Educ Rev, (37), 208\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnnamma SA, Connor D, Ferri B. Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethn Educ. 2013;16(1):1\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnwar TN. (2017). \u003cem\u003eDiscriminatory issues for children with special needs: the case of Ghana\u003c/em\u003e (Master's thesis, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArchibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArgyropoulos VS, Stamouli VA. A systematic literature review of the factors underlying digital divide among people with disabilities. Behav Inform Technol. 2021;40(6):569\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArkorful V, Barfi KA, Aheto SPK, Ayensu E. Assessing the Computer Literacy Level of Distance Education Students in Ghana. Ghana Libr J. 2025;30(1):7\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsamoah E, Amaniampong EM, Manful E, Gyasi-Boadu N, Koomson-Yalley ENM. (2023). Using Photovoice to illuminate challenges facing children with disabilities in inclusive education in Ghana. Social Work Social Sci Rev, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoot FH, Owuor J, Dinsmore J, MacLachlan M. Access to assistive technology for people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2017;61(10):900\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorg J, Larsson S, \u0026Ouml;stergren PO, Rahman AA, Bari N, Khan AN. Assistive technology use is associated with reduced capability poverty: a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh. Disabil Rehabilitation: Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):112\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrowning M, Bigby C, Douglas J. Including the voices and experiences of students with cognitive disability and high support needs: Implications for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarew MT, Deluca M, Groce N, Kett M. The impact of an inclusive education intervention on teacher preparedness to educate children with disabilities within the Lakes Region of Kenya. Int J Incl Educ. 2019;23(3):229\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChataika T, McKenzie JA, Swart E, Lyner-Cleophas M. Access to education in Africa: Responding to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2012;27(3):385\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClarke V, Braun V, Hayfield N. (2015). Thematic analysis. \u003cem\u003eQualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 222\u0026ndash;248.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollins, P. H., \u0026amp; Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrenshaw K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. U. Chi. Legal F.; 1989. p. 139.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeku P, Vanderpuye I. Towards Inclusive Education in Ghana. Online Submission; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDosek T. Snowball sampling and Facebook: how social media can help access hard-to-reach populations. PS: Political Sci Politics. 2021;54(4):651\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDziva C, Shoko M, Zvobgo EF. Implementation of the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Zimbabwe: A review. Afr J Disabil. 2018;7(1):1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdyburn DL. Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Except Child. 2013;80(1):7\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEffiom L, Agala F. (2020). Infrastructure and Africa\u0026rsquo;s Development: The imperative of alternative funding options. \u003cem\u003eFinancing Africa\u0026rsquo;s Development: Paths to Sustainable Economic Growth\u003c/em\u003e, 101\u0026ndash;133.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElliott V. Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Rep. 2018;23(11):2850\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEllis EM, Grantham CD. Assistive technology, accommodations and perceptions of academic success for postsecondary students with disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2016;45(3):327\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEtikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theoretical Appl Stat. 2016;5(1):1\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFilmer D. Disability, poverty and schooling in developing countries: results from 14 household surveys. World Bank Econ Rev. 2008;22(1):141\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlorian L, editor. The SAGE handbook of special education. Sage; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGabel SL, Miskovic M. Discourse and the containment of disability in higher education: An institutional analysis. Disabil Soc. 2014;29(7):1145\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGage SH, Sallis HM, Lassi G, Wootton RE, Mokrysz C, Smith GD, Munaf\u0026ograve; MR. Does smoking cause lower educational attainment and general cognitive ability? Triangulation of causal evidence using multiple study designs. Psychol Med. 2022;52(8):1578\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhai A. Disabled women: an excluded agenda of Indian feminism. Hypatia. 2002;17(3):49\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGibson BE. Disability, disadvantage and the new eugenics: Feminist interrogations. Br J Social Work. 2012;42(3):437\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGigli MW. A review of the role of assistive robotics in the lives of people with disabilities. IEEE Trans Human-Machine Syst. 2015;45(4):485\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGillborn D, Rollock N, Vincent C, Ball SJ. The Black middle classes, education, racism and dis/ability: An intersectional analysis. Disabil Soc. 2017;32(7):977\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoodley D. Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sage; 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGroundwater-Smith S, Dockett SE, Bottrell D. Participatory research with children and young people. Sage; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGutman J, Sy A, Chattopadhyay S. (2015). Financing African infrastructure: Can the world deliver?.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHammerton G, Munaf\u0026ograve; MR. Causal inference with observational data: the need for triangulation of evidence. Psychol Med. 2021;51(4):563\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarrison K. Free, appropriate, public and educational? Screen-schooling US children with disabilities during the 2020 pandemic. J Child Media. 2021;15(1):44\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarry B, Fenton P. Risk in schooling: The contribution of qualitative research to our understanding of the overrepresentation of minorities in special education. Multiple Voices Ethnically Diverse Except Learners. 2016;16(1):17\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHogue LB, Abernathy T. (2022). Inclusion.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIstenic Starcic A, Bagon S. ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special needs: Review of seven educational technology journals, 1970\u0026ndash;2011. Br J Edu Technol. 2014;45(2):202\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIwarsson S, St\u0026aring;hl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design\u0026mdash;positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(2):57\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacobs RJ, Hunsaker SL, Cabrera AP, Avila-John A, Chheng S. (2019). Low-cost assistive technologies for students with disabilities in the inclusive general education classroom. Int J Incl Educ, 1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJerry J, Tyler A, Hicks., Kirsten R, Lansey., Jennifer A, Kurth., Lewis J, Alison Z, Kristin B, Martin A, Karrie A, Shogren., Jesse R, Pace. (2022). Predicting the Frequency and Significance of Social Contacts Across Placements: A Bayesian Multilevel Model Analysis. Research and practice for persons with severe disabilities. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/15407969221136538\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15407969221136538\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJuvonen J, Lessard LM, Rastogi R, Schacter HL, Smith DS. Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychol. 2019;54(4):250\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKallio H, Pietil\u0026auml; AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(12):2954\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalulu G, Haukanes H, Smuk M, Tessier N, Vangen S. Co-creating science education for visually impaired learners using mobile technology in Malawi. Disabil Global South. 2021;8(2):2441.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKamran M, Siddiqui S, Adil MS. Breaking Barriers: The Influence of Teachers\u0026rsquo; Attitudes on Inclusive Education for Students with Mild Learning Disabilities (MLDs). Educ Sci. 2023;13(6):606.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKatz J, Mirenda P. Including students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms: Educational benefits. Int J Special Educ. 2002;17(2):14\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKauffman JM, Burke MD, Anastasiou D. Hard LRE choices in the era of inclusion: Rights and their implications. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2023;34(1):61\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan NA, Abedin S. Focus Group Discussion. Principles of Social Research Methodology. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. pp. 377\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirshner B. Youth activism in an era of education inequality. Volume 2. NYU; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKramer JM, Olsen S, Mermelstein M, Balcells A, Liljenquist K. Youth with disabilities' perspectives of the environment and participation: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Child Care Health Dev. 2012;38(6):763\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeeson C. Asking difficult questions: Exploring research methods with children on painful issues. Int J Res Method Educ. 2014;37(2):206\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLemon LL, Hayes J. Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative findings: Using Leximancer for qualitative data analysis triangulation. Qualitative Rep. 2020;25(3):604\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLendvai L, Svastics C, Luu LAN. (2023). Here is a man. He is not blind; he is a man. \u0026ndash; The lived experiences of masculinity among men with visual impairment. B\u0026aacute;beli Rend.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLight J, McNaughton D. Designing AAC research and intervention to improve outcomes for individuals with complex communication needs. Augmentative Altern Communication. 2015;31(2):85\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLivak NS, Portnyagina AM, Tihonov EA. (2022). Inclusive education of educators of educational institutions. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.26787/nydha-2686-6846-2022-24-12-11-16\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26787/nydha-2686-6846-2022-24-12-11-16\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacLachlan M, Banes D, Bell D, Borg J, Donnelly B, Fembek M, Hooks H. Assistive technology policy: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabilitation: Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):454\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMai CL, Baker K. Peer-assisted analysis of resident feedback improves clinical teaching: a case report. case Rep. 2017;9(1):24\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcNicholl A, Casey H, Desmond D, Gallagher P. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabilitation: Assist Technol. 2021;16(2):130\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMechling LC. (2007). Assistive technology as a self-management tool for prompting students with intellectual disabilities to initiate and complete daily tasks: A literature review. Educ Train Dev Disabil, 252\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoodley J, Graham L. The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies. Agenda. 2015;29(2):24\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMutanga O, Walker M. (2017). Exploration of the academic lives of students with disabilities at South African universities: Lecturers\u0026rsquo; perspectives. Afr J Disabil, 6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaami A, Hayashi R. Perceptions about disability among Ghanaian university students. J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil. 2012;11(2):100\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaderifar M, Goli H, Ghaljaie F. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides Dev Med Educ, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNishida A, Fine M. (2014). Building the movement to promote equitable opportunities for higher education for students with learning disabilities: Collaboration between disability studies in education and higher education research. Learn Disabilities: Contemp J, 12(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNishida A, Fine M. Creating classrooms of and for activism at the intersections of class, race, ethnicity, gender and disability. Multicultural Perspect. 2014;16(1):8\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOh-Young C, Filler J. A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;47:80\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOverbury RS, Huynh K, Bohnsack J, Frech T, Hersh A. A novel transition clinic structure for adolescent and young adult patients with childhood onset rheumatic disease improves transition outcomes. Pediatr Rheumatol. 2021;19:1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatti AL, Garland DR. Smart technology to maximize independence for people with intellectual and developmental disability: A systematic literature review. J Intellect Disabil. 2018;22(3):269\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerelmutter B, McGregor KK, Gordon KR. Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2017;114:139\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerez J, Byers A. Other ways to win: Creating alternatives for special education students. Focus on Exceptional Children; 2004.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoed S. (2018). Student voice and educational adjustments. Palgrave Handb Educ Law Schools, 335\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrior L, Evans C, Merlo J, Leckie G. (2022). Sociodemographic inequalities in student achievement: An intersectional multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) with application to students in London, England. \u003cem\u003earXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06321\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProsser AM, Heung LN, Blackwood L, O\u0026rsquo;Neill S, Bolderdijk JW, Kurz T. (2023). \u0026lsquo;Talk amongst yourselves\u0026rsquo;: designing and evaluating a novel remotely-moderated focus group methodology for exploring group talk. Qualitative Res Psychol, 1\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProtudjer JL, Batac ALR, Merrill KA, Golding MA, Knibb RC. Guidance to enhance participant validity during virtual qualitative interviews and focus groups. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023;130(4):522\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRedmond P, Smart V, Powell A, Albion P. Primary teachers\u0026rsquo; self-assessment of their confidence in implementing digital technologies curriculum. Education Tech Research Dev. 2021;69:2895\u0026ndash;915.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodriguez-Largacha MJ, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Flores FM, Fernandez-Sanchez G, Fernandez-Heredia A, Millan MA, Martinez JM, Bernaldo MO. Improving student participation and motivation in the learning process. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract. 2015;141(1):04014005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSamuels EJ. Six ways of thinking about disability: Intersectional approaches in disability studies and law. U Mich JL Reform. 2021;53:503.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSasu JK, Ogunyemi AA, Quaicoe JS, Bauters M, Aheto S-PK. Ethics surrounding artificial intelligence-powered assistive technologies used by people with visual and hearing impairments: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology; 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchock RE, Lee EA. (2016). Children's voices: perspectives on using assistive technology. Exceptionality Educ Int, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwab S, Holzinger A, Krammer M, Gebhardt M, Hessels MP. (2015). Teaching practices and beliefs about inclusion of general and special needs teachers in Austria. Learn Disabilities\u0026ndash;A Contemp J, 13(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScotland J. Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive and critical research paradigms. Engl Lang Teach. 2012;5(9):9\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingal N, Ware H, Bhayani A. Inclusive quality education for children with disabilities. The Sage handbook of inclusion and diversity in education; 2019. pp. 295\u0026ndash;306.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith EM. (2022). The Global Report on Assistive Technology: a new era for assistive technology.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun SJ, Ho WS. A Follow-Up Study on the Influence of Personal, Family and School Factors on Learning Outcomes of Students with Disabilities in Senior High School. Behav Sci. 2023;13(7):554.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTebbutt E, Brodmann R, Borg J, MacLachlan M, Khasnabis C, Horvath R. Assistive products and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Globalization health. 2016;12(1):1\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTerry G, Hayfield N, Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. SAGE Handb qualitative Res Psychol. 2017;2:17\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTisdall EK, Punch S. (2012). Not so \u0026lsquo;new\u0026rsquo;? Looking critically at childhood studies. In Critical Childhood Studies.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNESCO. (2022). The Global Education Monitoring Report.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations. (2012). Gender and women\u0026rsquo;s rights. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.un.org/en/global-issues/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations. (2015). Sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, United Nations. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sdgs.un.org/goals\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sdgs.un.org/goals\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations. (2020). Policy Brief: A Disability-Inclusive Response to COVID-19. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2020/05/covid-19-and-persons-with-disabilities/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2020/05/covid-19-and-persons-with-disabilities/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVaismoradi M, Snelgrove S. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Res, 20(3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVarkas M. Teachers\u0026rsquo; role on Social Inclusion and Employability Prospects of Students with Disabilities. Ijaedu-International E-J Adv Educ. 2022;8(23):196\u0026ndash;200.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaldschmidt A, Karačić A, Sturm A, Dins T. Nothing about us without us disability rights activism in European countries\u0026ndash;A comparative analysis. Mov Social. 2015;53:103\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWiener J, Tardif CY. Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities: Does special education placement make a difference? Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2004;19(1):20\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWood SG, Moxley JH, Tighe EL, Wagner RK. Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. J Learn Disabil. 2018;51(1):73\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2022). Assistive technology. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2022). Global report on assistive technology.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYenduri G, Kaluri R, Rajput DS, Lakshmanna K, Gadekallu TR, Mahmud M, Brown DJ. (2023). From Assistive Technologies to Metaverse\u0026ndash;Technologies in.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Disability, Differential abilities, Ghana, Inequalities and Inclusive education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7780740/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7780740/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper explores the technological, attitudinal and policy barriers students with disabilities face in accessing assistive technology and inclusive education in Ghana and how disability, gender, socioeconomics and other factors affect their technology experiences. This qualitative study examined students' attitudes on assistive technology and inclusive education through focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Twenty-three disabled students from two Ghanaian public universities were selected to reflect disability type, gender, socioeconomic level and other characteristics. The Intersectionality Framework was utilized to analyse the study to understand how many social identities and oppressive systems affect marginalization. This view acknowledges that humans have many, interconnected social identities that reflect power and inequality. This study indicated that disabled students in Ghanaian institutions experience multi-faceted impediments to assistive technology and inclusive education. Others include expensive device costs, ownership and lack of financing assistance that limit assistive technology availability. Architecture and transportation also limit campus accessibility. Attitudes produce biased learning environments, whereas institutional impediments include disability ignorance and inclusive practises. Researchers recommend expanding government and commercial funding for assistive technologies, especially free and affordable ones, to decrease financial obstacles for disabled individuals. They also suggested expanding inclusive pedagogy and universal design for learning teacher training and professional development.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Inequality Amplified: How Technological Hindrances Deepen Educational Disparities for Learners with Differential Abilities in Ghana","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-10 10:33:21","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7780740/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-27T11:33:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-21T18:12:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-15T20:59:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-15T13:32:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"52630451073335815210541422658199175493","date":"2026-02-15T10:32:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"130811870064361196413626637187979552114","date":"2026-02-13T16:49:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"201360909289153530277423884153825971994","date":"2026-02-13T10:27:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"37380342428014253273369522876474499002","date":"2026-02-05T23:22:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-05T20:57:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-05T20:52:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T12:41:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-14T15:55:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-01-14T15:44:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"17641fc3-fec4-4998-8b68-7287cfff85a2","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 10th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-21T08:38:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-10 10:33:21","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7780740","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7780740","identity":"rs-7780740","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}