Across Europe, inclusion in higher education is increasingly understood not as a set of measures for specific groups of students, but as a core ethical practice that shapes how higher education is designed, delivered, and experienced (Salmi, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). Inclusion today is about the full student journey, from access and admission to learning, assessment, progression, and graduation, and about how institutions take responsibility for removing barriers that are often invisible until they cause harm.
This understanding is central to the IncluDE project, (IncluDE, 2026) which frames inclusion, equity, and diversity as dimensions of educational quality rather than add-ons to it. IncluDE invites institutions to look honestly at their own systems and ask not only what works well, but also where assumptions, routines, or structures may unintentionally exclude some learners.
Within this European conversation, the Finnish higher education context, and TAMK as part of it, reflects both the progress made and the learning still underway.
A societal shift, and an ethical obligation
In Finland, learning difficulties, neurodiversity, mental health challenges, and diverse life situations are no longer hidden topics in higher education. What was once taboo has become discussable. This shift matters deeply. It signals a shared societal move away from individual blame and towards a broader understanding of human diversity (UNESCO, 2020).
At the same time, openness alone does not create inclusion. When systems remain rigid, when expectations are implicit, or when support is activated only after difficulties escalate, responsibility still falls on individual students to adapt, endure, or withdraw. From an ethical perspective, institutions cannot accept this as inevitable.
Ethical practice requires attentiveness to lived experience.
Inclusion, seen through a human rights lens, is not about kindness. It is about responsibility. The right to education includes the right to participate meaningfully, to be assessed fairly, and to progress without having to fit a narrow norm of the “ideal student” (United Nations, 1948).
Institutional responsibility: moving beyond parallel solutions
At TAMK, inclusion has increasingly been approached as an institutional responsibility, not a matter of individual accommodations or separate arrangements. This shift has required conscious work. Earlier approaches sometimes relied on parallel solutions, special procedures, or late interventions that unintentionally reinforced differences.
Over time, practice has moved towards integration rather than segregation. Instead of developing separate rules for separate people, the emphasis has been on adapting core systems themselves.
This has meant:
- designing admissions, guidance, and curricula with diversity as a starting point rather than an exception
- lowering thresholds for early support without attaching stigma
- embedding inclusion into quality assurance, pedagogical development, and digital learning environments
- systems are designed with diversity in mind rather than treated as an afterthought.
We have come far in recognising that inclusive systems work best when they are predictable, transparent, and shared by all, reducing the need for individual arrangements later on. At the same time, this work is ongoing. Not every structure adapts at the same pace, and inclusion continues to challenge institutional habits that once felt neutral or efficient.
Teaching and learning: inclusion as quality
Much of inclusion is enacted, or undermined, in everyday teaching and assessment. For educators, this has been one of the most significant learning areas.
At TAMK, inclusive teaching is increasingly understood as part of high-quality, evidence-based pedagogy, not as a set of individual favours. This has involved moving away from hidden expectations and relying instead on clarity, dialogue, and pedagogical flexibility grounded in research.
What has changed are not academic standards, but how they are reached. Transparent learning outcomes, clearer assessment criteria, and attention to workload and timing help ensure that assessment measures learning itself, not endurance, anxiety, or familiarity with unspoken norms (Salmi, 2020; UNESCO, 2020).
Teachers, too, are learners here. Navigating inclusion raises real questions about fairness, consistency, and professional judgement. Acknowledging this uncertainty has been important. Inclusion grows where educators are supported to reflect, discuss, and develop shared practices rather than being expected to carry responsibility alone.
The student experience: agency with dignity
From the student perspective, inclusion is felt in whether one belongs, is listened to, and can ask for support without being reduced to a label. At TAMK, student-centeredness is understood as a balance between agency and support, not as independence at any cost.
Students are expected to take responsibility for their learning, but not to manage complex systems alone or prove their legitimacy before being taken seriously. Creating ways for students to connect early, to receive guidance without pressure, and to trust institutional processes has been a key learning point.
Using evidence-based inclusive practices is therefore not only pedagogical, but also ethical. Inclusive design of learning environments, assessments, and guidance structures benefits:
- students with learning difficulties,
- students balancing work, family, or health,
- international and multilingual learners,
- and ultimately, all students navigating complex lives (UNESCO, 2020).
Here, inclusion is as much about how we listen as about what we provide. Not all barriers are visible or easily named. Ethical practice requires attentiveness to lived experience, even when it does not fit predefined categories.
Progression and graduation: inclusion as prevention
Across Europe, timely graduation is a shared concern. Experience has shown that delays or discontinuation rarely result from a single event. More often, they emerge from the accumulation of small barriers that were not addressed early enough (Salmi, 2020).
When systems are inclusive by design, fewer students reach the point where exceptional measures are needed.
At TAMK, inclusion is therefore increasingly understood as preventive work. Supporting progression and graduation is not only about the final stages of study, but about the quality and adaptability of the entire student journey.
When systems are inclusive by design, fewer students reach the point where exceptional measures are needed. Graduation, then, becomes a reflection of learning achieved within fair and humane structures, rather than a test of resilience against the system itself.
Inclusion as a continuous ethical practice
Inclusion in higher education is not neutral, technical, or finished work. It is ethical practice. It touches on non-discrimination, autonomy, confidentiality, dignity, and the responsible use of evidence (United Nations, 1948). It requires institutions to look critically at their own norms and to accept that good intentions do not always lead to inclusive outcomes.
The IncluDE framework supports this kind of reflection. It does not offer final answers, but a shared European language for examining where barriers still exist and how institutions can learn from one another.
From the TAMK perspective, inclusion is not something we claim to have solved. It is something we have learned to take seriously, something we have integrated more deeply into core practices, and something we know will continue to evolve.
A shared European learning journey
What IncluDE makes visible, and what institutions like TAMK seek to address in practice, is that inclusion must be intentional, evaluated, and continuously developed. It cannot rely on goodwill alone (IncluDE, 2026.)
For higher education institutions across Europe, the question is no longer whether inclusion matters. The more difficult question is whether we are willing to examine our systems honestly, to name tensions without defensiveness, and to learn together.
Inclusion, at its best, affirms dignity: You belong here. You are not alone. Your way of learning is valid.
Inclusion without segregation, quality without exclusion, standards without unnecessary barriers, these are not destinations, but directions.
We have come far. And we continue to learn.
Read more about the IncluDE project.
References
IncluDE. (2026). A European inclusion reference framework for inclusion, diversity and equity. https://include.eadtu.eu
Salmi, J. (2020). Higher education and inclusion (Background paper for the Global Education Monitoring Report). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373689
UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education – All means all. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Authors
Elina Botha
Principal Lecturer
Pedagogical Innovations and Culture
Tampere University of Applied Sciences
elina.botha@tuni.fi
ORCID: 0000-0002-5279-7395
Maija Timonen
Senior Lecturer
Pedagogical Innovations and Culture
Tampere University of Applied Sciences
maija.timonen@tuni.fi
Photo: Unsplash/Joakim Honkasalo