Session 5 - Strand 1

Abstract:

Assessment-related reasonable adjustments sit at the intersection of legal duty, pedagogic judgement and day-to-day operational reality. While universities are clear about what they must do in principle, far less attention is paid to how different groups understand what counts as reasonable in practice – particularly in assessment contexts. This session draws on an early-stage research project exploring how academic staff and professional services colleagues perceive, interpret and navigate reasonable adjustments for assessment. Rather than presenting settled findings, the session invites participants into the problem space of the research: where legal obligations, institutional processes and individual judgements collide. The session will briefly outline the legal and policy backdrop to reasonable adjustments in higher education before focusing on why assessment often becomes a flashpoint for uncertainty, inconsistency and anxiety. Using emerging insights from qualitative work, the session will explore how assumptions about fairness, standards, resources and risk shape what staff feel able to do in practice.Participants will be encouraged to reflect on their own perceptions of “reasonableness”, where these understandings come from and how differences in interpretation can create tensions for both staff and students. The session will also consider how surfacing these perceptions might help institutions develop clearer, more supportive guidance for colleagues who are trying to do the right thing in a complex and pressured environment. The intent is not to offer definitive answers, but to open up a shared, evidence-informed conversation about how universities can better support staff decision-making around assessment adjustments.