Microagressions

This guide supports EMERGE partner institutions in developing and delivering workshops for academic staff on disability-related microaggressions in higher education.

Part I: Conceptual foundations

Disability, inclusion and everyday interactions

Efforts to promote inclusion in higher education often focus on policies, support services, accessibility measures, and reasonable accommodations. While these are important, inclusion is also shaped through everyday interactions between staff and students. Comments, assumptions, expectations, and routine practices can influence whether students feel respected, recognised, and able to participate fully in university life. Such interactions may unintentionally communicate exclusion or devaluation, even when no harm is intended. For this reason, attention to interactional practices is an important component of inclusive higher education.

Understanding ableism

Ableism refers to beliefs, assumptions, and practices that position particular forms of embodiment, communication, cognition, behaviour, or functioning as normal, desirable, or superior. Ableism does not necessarily involve hostility toward disabled people. It may also appear through taken-for-granted assumptions about competence, independence, productivity, communication, or academic participation. Because these assumptions are often deeply embedded in institutions and everyday practices, they may remain unnoticed by those who reproduce them.

What are microaggressions?

Microaggressions are everyday comments, interactions, behaviours, or practices that communicate negative, exclusionary, or demeaning messages toward members of marginalised groups. They are often subtle, routine, and unintentional. Unlike overt discrimination, microaggressions may not be immediately recognised by those who perform them. Nevertheless, they can contribute to feelings of exclusion, diminished belonging, and unequal participation. Microaggressions are generally understood in relation to their impact rather than the intentions of the individual involved.

Impact and intention

Discussions of microaggressions often raise questions of intention. Individuals may feel that because they intended to be supportive, respectful, or helpful, their actions should not be regarded as problematic. The purpose of discussing microaggressions is not to assign blame or evaluate moral character. Rather, it is to consider how particular interactions may be experienced and what messages they may communicate. Reflecting on impact enables educators to examine practices that may unintentionally undermine inclusion and to consider alternative approaches.

Microaggressions in higher education

Universities are environments in which participation, assessment, supervision, accommodation are constantly negotiated. Interactions between academic staff and students therefore carry particular significance. Small actions or comments may influence students’ willingness to seek support, disclose disability, participate in learning activities, or engage with university life more broadly. Recognising disability-related microaggressions is therefore not simply a matter of interpersonal sensitivity but part of creating inclusive educational environments.

Common forms of disability-related microaggressions

Examples of disability-related microaggressions in higher education may include:

Assuming lower academic ability because a student has a disability.
Speaking to support personnel rather than directly to the student.
Requesting unnecessary personal or medical information.
Treating accommodations as special favours rather than educational rights.
Assuming all students with a particular diagnosis have similar needs.
Expressing surprise when disabled students achieve highly.
Using patronising or infantilising language.
Assuming disabled students require protection rather than participation.
Dismissing students’ accounts of their own experiences.

Part II. Workshop guidance

Workshop aim: To support academic staff in recognising disability-related microaggressions and reflecting on how everyday interactions can contribute to more inclusive learning environments.

Duration: 60-90 minutes.

Structure:

Learning outcomes: By the end of the workshop participants should be able to:

define disability-related microaggressions;
identify examples in higher education contexts;
reflect on the assumptions that underpin such interactions;
consider alternative and more inclusive practices.

Workshop content and resources

Activity 1: Introduction and reflection

10 minutes

Invite participants to consider:

What makes students feel that they belong in a university community?
How do everyday interactions contribute to inclusion or exclusion?

Activity 2: Conceptual input

15-20 minutes

Introduce:

ableism;
microaggressions;
impact versus intention;
examples from higher education.

Activity 3: Scenario analysis

20-30 minutes
Appendix 1 provides a table with scenario analysis.

Participants work in small groups. For each scenario discuss:

What assumptions are present?
What message might be communicated?
How might the interaction be experienced?
What alternative response could be considered?

Activity 4: Institutional reflection

15 minutes

Invite participants to consider:

Which forms of microaggression are most likely to occur in our institution?
Are there institutional practices that unintentionally communicate exclusion?
What changes could improve inclusion?

Activity 5: Closing discussion

10 minutes

Ask participants to identify:

one idea they will take away from the workshop;
one practice they may reconsider;
one action they could implement in their own teaching or supervision.

Adapting the workshop to local contexts

The conceptual principles presented in this guide are intended to provide a common EMERGE framework while allowing flexibility for local implementation.

Partner institutions are encouraged to:

incorporate national legislation and policy frameworks
use examples relevant to local educational systems
adapt terminology where appropriate
include institutional support services and procedures
develop discipline-specific examples and case studies
incorporate literature relevant to local educational systems

Appendix 1.Workshop scenarios on disability-related microaggressions

Concept	Scenario	Underlying message	Discussion questions	Possible alternative response
Helpless-ness	A lecturer notices that a student with a mobility impairment arrives late because of accessibility difficulties. Without consulting the student, the lecturer removes attendance requirements and excuses them from group activities.	Disabled students are dependent and unable to determine their own support needs.	What assumptions are being made? What message might this communicate? Is this support or paternalism? How could the student be involved in the decision?	Discuss accessibility barriers with the student and jointly determine appropriate adjustments.
Mini-misation	A student requests examination accomm-odations for a chronic health condition. A staff member responds: "You seem perfectly fine to me. Are the accommodations really necessary?"	Invisible disabilities are less legitimate and may require proof or justification.	Why might this comment be problematic? What assumptions about disability are evident? How might students with invisible disabilities experience such interactions?	Focus on the approved accommodation process rather than personal judgements about the student’s condition.
Ascription of competence	Students decide that a student with a visual impairment should not participate in the presentation because they assume it will be difficult. The student is assigned only administrative tasks.	Disability implies reduced competence and limited capacity to contribute.	Was the group trying to exclude the student? What assumptions about competence are operating? How might inclusion have been approached differently?	Ask the student how they would like to participate and collaboratively organise accessible participation.
Second-class citizenship	A lecturer approves an alternative assessment arrangement and tells the student: "Normally I wouldn’t do this, but I’ll make an exception for you."	Accomm-odations are favours granted by staff rather than educational rights.	How is accommodation being framed? What is the difference between a favour and a right? How might this affect future requests for support?	Present accomm-odations as a normal part of ensuring equitable participation in higher education.
Othering	A student with a hearing impairment applies for a research assistant position. A faculty member comments: "The position requires a lot of communication. Are you sure you can manage it?"	Disabled students are outside the norm and are less suited for academic roles.	What assumptions are being made? What information would be needed before making such a judgement? How might this affect belonging?	Evaluate the applicant on the basis of qualifications and discuss any support requirements if relevant.
Ableist language	A lecturer repeatedly refers to "normal students" and "students with special needs" or “typically developed students”, while intending to be supportive.	Disabled students are different from, and outside, the ordinary student population.	What categories are being created? What messages might students receive? How could the lecturer communicate the same idea differently?	Use inclusive language that avoids constructing students as normal versus abnormal.

Note: The list is not exhaustive; more examples of microaggression could be included, i.e. ascription of intelligence, myth of meritocracy, infantilization etc.

Appendix 2. Facilitator scenario guide

Participants will work in small groups and discuss each scenario. The purpose is not to identify a "correct" answer but to encourage reflection on how everyday interactions may influence inclusion, participation, and belonging in higher education.

For each scenario, invite participants to consider:

What assumptions are present?
What message might be communicated?
How might the interaction be experienced?
What alternative responses could be considered?

Facilitators may use the "Underlying Message" and "Possible Alternative Response" columns as prompts during the plenary discussion.

Reminders

Encourage discussion rather than evaluation.
Focus on impact rather than intention.
Acknowledge that participants may interpret scenarios differently.
Use local examples where relevant.
Remind participants that the scenarios are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

Appendix 3. Disability reflection worksheet

This worksheet is intended to support personal reflection before or after the workshop. It may be completed individually or used as a basis for discussion during workshop activities.

1. Assumptions and expectations

Reflect on the following questions:

What characteristics do you associate with a successful university student?
What characteristics do you associate with independence in higher education?
How might these expectations influence your interactions with disabled students?

Are there behaviours that you tend to interpret as signs of engagement, motivation, competence, or professionalism? Could there be alternative interpretations?

2. Everyday interactions

Think of a recent interaction with a disabled student (or a student who requested support or accommodations):

What happened?
How did you respond?
What assumptions may have influenced your response?
How might the interaction have been experienced by the student?
Looking back, is there anything you might do differently?

3. Participation and inclusion

Consider your own teaching context:

What barriers to participation might exist in your courses, laboratories, placements, or supervision practices?
Which barriers are most visible?
Which barriers may be less visible?
How are accommodations discussed and implemented in your teaching context?
What messages might students receive about disability, support, and belonging?

4. Institutional context

Reflect on your institution:

What forms of disability-related microaggression are most likely to occur in your university?
Are there institutional practices that may unintentionally communicate exclusion?
What resources or support structures are available to disabled students?
What additional changes might strengthen inclusion?

5. Moving forward

Identify one concrete action you can take:

One assumption I would like to reconsider:
One practice I would like to change:
One action I could implement in my teaching, supervision, or assessment practices:
One thing I would like to learn more about:

Personal commitment

Complete the following statements:

I will become more aware of...
I will ask rather than assume when...
I will contribute to a more inclusive learning environment by...

Download the course document

Contact us

Gunnar Furseth Klinge

Director of International Affairs

Email: gunnar.klinge@inn.no
Phone: +47 92 80 95 94

This workshop guide was developed by Athanasios Koutsoklenis, Associate Professor of Inclusive Education, School of Education, Democritus University of Thrace (Greece), in collaboration with Gunnar Furseth Klinge, Director of International Affairs and teacher in Intercultural Communication at the University of Inland Norway (INN).