Accessibility guide for inclusive events
This new Accessibility Guide aims to support the organisation of inclusive events as well as the accessible public dissemination of research. 12 May 2025
This blog spot / case study originally appeared on the https://staff.sheffield.ac.uk/research-culture/case-studies/event-accessibility-guide and is reproduced here to make it publically available
Accessibility guide for inclusive events
This new Accessibility Guide aims to support the organisation of inclusive events as well as the accessible public dissemination of research.
12 May 2025
Overview
Lead: Antonios Ktenidis
Co-leads:
Alex Mason (Centre for Equity and Inclusion)
Dan Goodley (Education)
Nigel Barker (Public Events team)
Ros Williams (Sociological Studies)
Anthony Williams (Education)
Faculty: Faculty of Social Sciences
Funding year: 2022-2023 and 2023-2024
What motivated you to develop the research culture projects, and how did you get started?
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) agendas have become increasingly prominent within Higher Education (HE), with institutions implementing committees, action plans, awards and charters aimed at addressing systemic inequalities such as sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. However, disability—and the systemic discrimination known as disablism—often remains marginalised in these initiatives. Although the number of disabled students and staff in HE has grown, the barriers they face are frequently framed as individual impairments rather than the result of institutional structures and exclusionary ideologies. Furthermore, these forms of oppression are typically treated as discrete categories, with limited attention paid to how they intersect. For instance, little is understood about how disablism interacts with racism or how disabled staff and students of colour experience research cultures within universities.
In response to these gaps, we applied for funding for a project titled Promoting Anti-Racist and Anti-Disablist Research Cultures. During the development phase, a colleague recommended contacting Dr Alex Mason, Project Manager at the Centre for Equity and Inclusion. Following our initial discussions, we chose to co-develop an Accessibility Guide aimed at enhancing the inclusivity of university events. To strengthen the project's impact, we partnered internally with the University of Sheffield's Public Events team and externally with Ladders4Action.
What were the key aims of your projects?
The first project -Promoting Anti-Racist and Anti-Disablist Research Cultures- aimed to develop an accessibility guide (AG) for events to support the organisation of inclusive events and the accessible public dissemination of research.
The second project -Actioning The Accessibility Guide-followed on from the creation of the accessibility guide (AG) to actually test how well the guide works.
Ultimately, both projects aimed to enhance the research culture by contributing to the creation of an inclusive, supportive culture, in which everyone feels valued, listened to, and a sense of belonging.
What were the projects’ outcomes? How did it contribute to developing a positive research culture?
The first project produced the accessibility guide and the subsequent project trialled the implementation of the AG at two events.
The accessibility guide was co-created with internal and external (Ladders4Action) expertise on race, disability and access. There were a series of online workshops with disabled colleagues of colour to identify the accessibility key issues to be addressed and practical information to be provided e.g. guidance on BSL interpretation, venue hire, catering options. The guide was first presented at a symposium – Promoting Anti-Racist and Anti-Disablist Research Cultures.
The second project used the AG in the planning of two events, Love and Social Justice Event and Critical Exploration of Ethical Issues in Research with Vulnerable Population, and helped shape promotion, scheduling, staging, performances, refreshments etc.
Following advice from the Accessibility Guide, the Centre for Equity & Inclusion recruited an accessibility consultant to assist with planning for the Love & Social Justice public event. With their support we were able to think more expansively about what accessibility can look like in a public event. For example, they led on the development of an accessibility venue audit, which we sent out to the different venues we were considering hiring. On the basis of this report we were able to make a more informed decision about what venue would allow for greater accessibility. It also meant we were able to give presenters and audiences more detailed information about the accessibility of the space, another piece of advice from the guide.
Another example is the development of an accessible ice breaker, which included a traffic light system for audience members to express their comfort levels regarding social interaction. Having the guide as a constant reference point in meetings meant accessibility was foregrounded in all of our discussions and helped shape plans around promotion, scheduling, staging, performances, refreshments, etc. The end result of this is that we had disabled people in the audience who informed us that they signed up because of the clear attention paid to accessibility. They also indicated that they had a very positive experience of the event and would attend others that we organised in the future.
What is your proudest or most memorable moment from the project? What aspect(s) did you enjoy the most?
The proudest and most memorable moment of the project was the co-creation of the Accessibility Guide, developed collaboratively with Addy Adelaine, Tasnim Hassan, Jane-May Martin, Nigel Fisher, and Dr Alex Mason. This guide not only reflected a shared commitment to equity but also served as a practical tool for embedding accessibility into the very fabric of university events. What made this particularly rewarding was witnessing the real-world impact of our efforts during our symposia. Participants expressed that, for the first time, they felt genuinely included and seen. Their access needs were not only acknowledged but actively met—often in ways that had previously been overlooked.
The events were shaped by a deep ethos of care and accountability, where access was not treated as an afterthought but integrated throughout. On the occasions where access did fall short, genuine apologies and collective responsibility replaced defensiveness. This signalled a shift in how accessibility was understood—not merely as a technical or legal obligation, but as a political and relational practice. I especially valued the opportunity to explore concepts such as access intimacy and the joy of access, reimagining accessibility as something transformative, humanising, and deeply connected to justice.
Were there any difficulties or challenges during the course of the project? How did you overcome these?
One of the key challenges of the project was confronting and attempting to shift deeply ingrained ableist practices within higher education. Accessibility is often treated as an add-on rather than a fundamental aspect of event planning and institutional culture. For example, we worked to normalise the use of microphones without requiring individuals to justify their need, promoted hybrid events to support remote access, and introduced comfort breaks and shorter event durations. These changes, though seemingly small, challenged long-standing norms.
Rather than claiming that we fully overcame these challenges, I would emphasise that this work is ongoing. Transforming institutional habits takes time and persistence. Encouragingly, colleagues who participated in our events began adopting similar practices in their own work, and attendees reported recommending our approaches to others. This suggests that cultural change is beginning to ripple outward.
Another challenge was ensuring that the Accessibility Guide we developed was not reduced to a checklist or seen as a definitive solution. As we emphasised in the Guide, accessibility must be understood as relational and evolving, requiring continual reflection and adaptation. Our aim was to promote access not as a fixed standard, but as an ethical and political commitment to inclusion and equity.
Have there been any updates, developments or impact since the project ended?
Since the formal end of the project, there have been several meaningful developments and ongoing impacts. The Accessibility Guide we co-created has been adopted and used by other networks and centres, including the Centre for Equity and Inclusion and the Participatory Research Network, to support the planning and delivery of more inclusive events. This demonstrates how the guide has resonated beyond its original context and continues to influence broader institutional practices.
Furthermore, the project has directly informed Priority Area 2 of the Wellcome project on anti-ableist research cultures. This work builds on our earlier efforts by revisiting and expanding the Accessibility Guide in collaboration with disabled researchers and project partners. As part of this new phase, training will be offered to event organisers—such as the Public Engagement Team—and the revised guide will be actively implemented in future events hosted by the University of Sheffield.
The overarching goal remains to normalise accessibility, embedding it as a standard and expected element of academic and public-facing events. Rather than treating inclusion as an exception or afterthought, these developments aim to establish accessible event planning as a routine part of research culture—marking a shift toward more equitable and sustainable practices in higher education.
What advice would you give to colleagues interested in developing their own research culture initiatives?
For colleagues interested in developing their own research culture initiatives, my first piece of advice is to start by critically reflecting on who is included in this work—and, just as importantly, who is not. Research cultures often reproduce patterns of exclusion, so it's essential to question whose voices are being centred and whose experiences are overlooked. Building inclusive cultures requires intentional outreach, listening, and a willingness to be uncomfortable.
Be prepared for bureaucratic challenges; institutional processes can be slow, risk-averse, and resistant to change. Navigating these systems requires patience, persistence, and sometimes creative workarounds. Don’t be discouraged if progress feels incremental—cultural change rarely happens quickly.
It’s also vital to embrace difficult conversations rather than avoid them. Discomfort is part of the process, especially when challenging entrenched norms and addressing power imbalances. Creating safer spaces for open dialogue can lead to deeper understanding and meaningful change.
Finally, trust that your work matters—even when its impact isn’t immediately visible. Small shifts can create ripple effects, influencing how others think, plan, and lead. Change takes time, but your efforts contribute to a larger movement toward more equitable, inclusive, and reflective research cultures.

iHuman
How we understand being ‘human’ differs between disciplines and has changed radically over time. We are living in an age marked by rapid growth in knowledge about the human body and brain, and new technologies with the potential to change them.