while not the focus of my study, certainly merits further research. Yet even though I
am not able to say whether or not political prose and inclusive pedagogic practice
are in harmony, it is pertinent to note that Norway invests quite heavily in Universal
Design (UD). This, in turn, surely enhances the parity between systemic enablement
and the individual experience of inclusivity. At this suture, disability pedagogues
are usually adept atfinding the right balance between support and bossiness.
The emphasis is always though on bringing social justice into social structure. The
rationale is persuasive. Many disabled people actually become experts in UD
through hit-and-miss encounters. That sounds positive, but in a civilised society like
Norway, it is unacceptable. Why, for example,fit button door openers—not always
easy for wheelchair users to access—after the fact? It would be better to instal
electronic sensors right from the start. This would benefit everyone, including
wheelchair users and professors carrying bundles of books. Forgive the cliché, but
surely this is“win, win”. Equally important, the design is inclusive and respectful,
and it does reverberate with Framework ( 2005 ) aspirations.
Once UD becomes“normalised”, that is, made mainstream, practical benefits
aside, it reduces social stigma. In addition, many non-disabled people can gain from
UD, as briefly exemplified above, even though it generally targets the disabled
community. Consider voice command software, for instance. A simple oral com-
mand—‘Fix slow download’—would surely appeal to all PC and Mac users.
Similarly, curb cuts are a helpful and an inclusive UD innovation. Disability groups
introduced them in the city of San Francisco on a 1970s“peace and love”wave.
The primary aim was to improve wheelchair user mobility in urban areas. Today,
this innovation is quite widespread in urban areas. Cheap and easy to produce, curb
cuts improve mobility for those who use grocery carts, wheeled luggage and other
forms of pedestrian transport.
Another enabling device, closed-caption decoder TVs, also assist diverse pop-
ulations: not only those who are hard of hearing or deaf, but for people for whom
English is a second language and early readers. Although the advancement of UD in
Norway is an unfinished project, publicly funded assistive design and technology is
establishing itself as a cornerstone of disability policy. I am optimistic that this
investment will further the social pedagogic aim of raising pedagogic capacity
because UD holds great potential for lifting perceived self-efficacy. It is also a
compassionate form of engineering, uniting Heart and Head in the service of kind
acts. That way, the circle is rounded, so to speak.
To round off this section on an up-beat note, public spending on top quality
assistive technology has become a major priority, to the extent that Nordic nations
are often seen as role models in the development of new and innovative UD. The
accolade is deserved because Norway is slowly but surely moving towards a society
in which the empowerment of disabled people is taking hold. Disability pedagogy is
an important part of this story. Students and practitioners of the discipline study and
work in a country in which the welfare state spends relatively more on families,
unemployment, sick leave, disability support and health than most other OECD
countries (OECD 2014 ). This is the“walking the walk”part.
198 P. Stephens