Institutional Bystanding: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Support Gaps for Deaf/Hard of Hearing Students in Ghanaian Higher Education

Abstract

Despite growing policy commitments to inclusive education, deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students in Ghanaian higher education institutions continue to encounter significant barriers to full academic participation. National policies such as the Inclusive Education Policy (2015) and the Persons with Disability Act (2006) formally promote equitable access to education. However, empirical studies consistently show that the implementation of these policies within universities remains uneven. DHH students frequently experience shortages of sign language interpreters, inaccessible teaching materials, limited lecturer preparedness for inclusive pedagogy, and fragmented institutional support systems. Existing explanations for these barriers often emphasise resource constraints, institutional capacity limitations, or weaknesses in policy implementation. While these factors are important, they do not fully explain why accessibility gaps persist even when institutional actors recognise the needs of students with disabilities. This paper proposes a conceptual framework of Institutional Bystanding (IB) to explain patterns of organisational inaction within higher education systems. Drawing on insights from the Bystander Effect in social psychology and Critical Disability Theory, the paper argues that accessibility gaps may arise when responsibility for responding to students’ needs becomes diffused across multiple institutional actors. Within such environments, lecturers, administrators, and support units may assume that other actors are responsible for providing accommodations, misinterpret collective inaction as evidence that intervention is unnecessary, or hesitate to act due to uncertainty about institutional expectations. The proposed framework identifies the interaction between structural conditions, including policy ambiguity, fragmented administrative structures, limited accessibility resources, and weak accountability systems, and psychological mechanisms such as diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and evaluation apprehension. Together, these factors can produce Institutional Bystanding, resulting in delayed accommodations, inconsistent accessibility practices, and increased reliance on student self-advocacy. The framework offers a theoretical lens for understanding accessibility gaps and highlights the need for structural reforms that clarify responsibility and strengthen institutional accountability for disability inclusion.