Introduction

Brazilian education for students with disabilities traces back to the 19th century when initial efforts were made to establish educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities. However, these initiatives were largely influenced by stigmatizing perceptions of disability and were primarily driven by isolated undertakings within Non-Governmental Organizations, philanthropic institutions, as well as segregated classes within psychiatric institutions (^{JANUZZI, 1985}). These models of understanding disability were rooted in religious, charitable, and medical assumptions, which respectively associated disability with sin, pity, and individual impairment. Consequently, they contributed to perpetuating stigmatizing conceptions of disability. In contrast, the social model of disability acknowledges the interplay between physical impairments and social barriers, attributing the experiences of disability to the societal environment and its hindrances (^{DINIZ, 2007}).

In the 20th century, there was a shift towards adopting less stigmatizing concepts in understanding disability. This shift was accompanied by the implementation of the Law of Guidelines and Bases (LDB), which aimed to facilitate the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in regular classrooms. Additionally, with the enactment of the Brazilian Constitution in 1988, there was a growing movement towards integrating people with disabilities into mainstream schools. The ^{Declaration of Salamanca in 1994} further fueled discussions and efforts to promote genuine inclusion of students with disabilities. As a result, the participation of children with disabilities in regular schools was strengthened. In 2008, with the establishment of the National Policy on Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (^{BRAZIL, 2008}), inclusive education became a viable possibility.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2009 and, more recently, the Brazilian Inclusion Law (LBI) in 2015, have served as instruments to safeguard the rights of individuals with disabilities, enabling their social participation in various domains, including education. In accordance with the CRPD, people with disabilities are defined as follows:

those who have long-term bodily impairments of a physical, intellectual, mental, or sensory nature, which, in interaction with various barriers, can hinder their full participation in society on an equal basis with others (^{BRAZIL, 2009}).

This concept was based on the social model of understanding disability and stems from the advocacy and political activism of individuals with disabilities (^{DINIZ, 2007}). Public policies are necessary to ensure that teaching and learning processes occur from an inclusive perspective, with the dissemination of up-to-date and non-stigmatizing knowledge about disability. There is still discrimination against people with disabilities in various spheres, particularly in education, which hinders their full participation in society and is commonly referred to as ableism. Ableism is a

network of beliefs, processes, and practices that produces a certain type of body (the normative body) that is constructed as perfect, typical of the species, and therefore essential and fully human. Disability is then framed as a diminished state of being human (^{CAMPBELL, 2001}, p. 44).

Ableism underlies the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in accessing higher education, characterized by a lack of pedagogical resources that support accessibility. In terms of quantitative data, the percentage of the population with disabilities aged 18 and above who have completed a higher education degree is approximately 5.0%, whereas in the population without disabilities, this figure stands at 17.0% (^{INEP, 2022}).

According to data from the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (INEP), the number of students with disabilities in higher education has been increasing since 2003. Despite this growth, among university students, individuals with disabilities are still few in number. In 2018, the enrollment of students with disabilities represented 0.5% of the total student population in universities (^{INEP, 2022}).

Only a small number of public and private universities have an enrollment of students with disabilities reaching up to 1%. Consequently, the enactment of Law No. 13,409 in 2016, which implemented quotas for individuals with disabilities in federal universities, serves as an important initial step towards addressing this issue (^{BRASIL, 2016}).

Participation in higher education extends beyond undergraduate students and encompasses graduate students and professors as well. The field of science serves society and holds immense potential for driving significant social transformations, ranging from technological advancements and the development of social indicators to the formulation of public policies.

In light of this context, a crucial question arises: how does access and retention occur in various instances of higher education (undergraduate, stricto sensu postgraduate programs, and faculty positions) for individuals with disabilities who identify themselves as activists? The interest in activists arises from the fact that public policies aimed at people with disabilities have been primarily shaped by the political struggles of disability activists. The context and issue were translated into the objective of analyzing the discourses of individuals with disabilities regarding their access and persistence in higher education.

Method

This is a qualitative research with descriptive-analytical objectives, of a cross-sectional nature, and it utilized the Narrative Interview technique grounded in historical-cultural references (^{BRUNER, 1991}; ^{CAIXETA; BORGES, 2007}), aiming to highlight the meanings derived from the understanding of subjectivity as a historical-cultural process that is organized in narratives. Additionally, field notes were employed (^{CRESWELL, 2011}). This article represents a subset of a broader research project focusing on different forms of political participation among individuals with disabilities, with specific data presented regarding participation in higher education. To this end, a theoretical and methodological framework was employed that integrates authors such as ^{Vygotsky (2008)} regarding the constitution of meanings and the process of thought and language production, with intersectional studies stemming from black feminism by authors like ^{Kilomba (2018}), and feminist disability studies by authors like ^{Campbell (2001}), ^{Mello (2016}), ^{Moraes (2010}), and ^{Diniz (2007}). This is an investigation that aligns with the conceptual perspective of the social model of disability, referred to as emancipatory research. Emancipatory research is a way of studying the phenomenon of disability that seeks to highlight the realities of oppression experienced by people with disabilities. Ultimately, it aims to overcome such oppressions by creating ruptures that allow for the transformation of the material and social conditions in which people with disabilities are embedded.

Emancipatory research assumes a collaborative approach with people with disabilities (^{MORAES, 2010}) and is linked to the historical-cultural perspective, aiming to investigate the meanings attributed by individuals with disabilities. It emphasizes that the research process should prioritize the perspective of the participants.

The snowball sampling strategy (^{BIERNACKI; WALDORF, 1981}) was employed to recruit participants, wherein initial participants refer additional participants. The contact with individuals was established through a written message, followed by the provision of an accessible version of the Informed Consent Form (ICF) compatible with screen readers. The interviews were conducted online, employing measures to ensure accessibility.

The interviews unfolded as narratives triggered by the guiding question, "Tell me your story of political activism." They lasted approximately one hour, were recorded, and transcribed. In total, 16 individuals were interviewed, comprising eight men and eight women³, que, all identifying as cisgender⁴,, with only one person self-identifying as Black. Only one interviewee had completed basic education, while the others had completed or were in the process of completing higher education. Participants came from various regions of the country, excluding the northern region of Brazil. Regarding types of disabilities, there were individuals with physical, visual, intellectual, and autism-related disabilities. All ethical considerations concerning research with human subjects were respected, and this study was approved by the ethics committee under the number 28916720.1.0000.0121. It is important to note that participants chose the names used to refer to them in the text. Following the logic of the article, only selected accounts are presented for discussion. The proposed analysis of the interviews is based on discourse analysis from a historical-cultural perspective of understanding meanings and significances (^{VYGOTSKY, 2008}).

The definition of the analysis categories occurred after the interviews, following their transcription, and involved a process of initial reading with the selection of important excerpts. This was followed by five to ten re-readings and further excerpt selections. Based on the selected excerpts, a framework was constructed with themes and subthemes that interconnected the excerpts, highlighting their emphases on meaning, content, tone, coherence, and incoherence of the narrative throughout the interview, thereby bringing forth the produced discourses within this relationship.

Results and Discussion

The accounts of university inclusion were characterized d by the fact that the interviewees were either the first or the only person with a disability occupying that educational space, as evidenced by the narratives of Ivan, "I was the only person with a disability in the room, you know?" (Ivan), and also in the account of Priscila, "I was the first visually impaired student in the Law course" (Priscila). The profile of the participants in the study predominantly consists of individuals with a completed higher education, which already sets them apart from a significant portion of the disabled population who do not even have access to higher education (^{CRESPO, 2009}; ^{ANGELUCCI; SANTOS; PEDOTT, 2020}). This factor of access is likely related to intersecting factors of class and the critical discourses expressed about the academic environment.

Access to higher education, in some cases, was influenced by financial difficulties and attitudinal barriers, where public policies for access to higher education played a significant role in ensuring the entry into university for some of the interviewees. Arthur recounts, "I ended up taking the entrance exam and I was very close to getting a spot (...). But then I got accepted into the ProUni program and managed to secure a full scholarship to attend a private university" (Arthur). However, admission to the university does not guarantee retention, as university structures are not fully accessible in terms of architecture, programmatic design, and attitudes.

In Priscila's accounts, it is possible to identify the unpreparedness of the university she attended and its administrators in dealing with the situation of vision loss that she experienced after an accident. The university urged her to take a longer leave of absence so that the administration could get organized. Priscila recalls, "After the accident, I went back to the university, talked to the director, and he said, 'Oh, Priscila, suspend the course for a little longer because I still don't know how to deal with you'" (Priscila). However, she did not accept this suggestion and, through her own insistence, returned to the classroom and navigated the new form of learning that she and the professors developed in terms of evaluation parameters. In her own words, "There were professors who scheduled different times, there were professors who assigned different assignments, there were professors who took the exam in the same room with everyone else, but with different questions, you know. Each one evaluated me in their own way" (Priscila), demonstrating that the responsibility for making necessary accommodations for learning falls on the figure of the teacher (^{CARNEIRO, PEDROSO; SANTOS, 2022}). However, these measures should be adopted on a broader scale, as an institutional policy, as advocated by the LBI (Law for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities) and the CDPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), rather than as occasional adaptations that run the risk of not being implemented to benefit the access, retention, participation, and learning of individuals with disabilities, depending on the individual understanding of each administration or educational professional.

In addition to the challenges of accessing and remaining in higher education, having an undergraduate degree does not guarantee employment, especially for individuals with disabilities who face barriers to formal employment (^{PAIVA, 2014}). For this reason, the interviewees express a desire to deepen their knowledge through participation in a stricto sensu graduate program. Interviewees Priscila, Ricardo, Amarílis, Denise, Cacto, Frida, and Arthur demonstrate an interest in pursuing a stricto sensu graduate program, but their motivations vary. Priscila spoke about her interest in achieving financial stability through public tender (a career in the public sector) Therefore, it appears that the motivation for pursuing a master's degree stems from the perspective of improving salary and/or enhancing their qualifications.

Considering the Brazilian context, it is understandable why Priscila and others express a desire for further education, as since 2014 the number of graduates occupying positions of lower qualification has been increasing, and nearly half of young people with degrees are working outside their field of expertise (^{IPEA, 2018}). Therefore, the need for further education leads individuals to perceive academia as a means to pursue professional development and strive for improved salary prospects.

Conclusions

The aim of this article was to analyze the discourses of individuals with disabilities regarding their access to and persistence in higher education. The accounts of their overall experiences in higher education are marked by the encounter of barriers, the influence of public policies, and the increasing entry of individuals with disabilities into higher education. The importance of this inclusion for the process of learning and the development of citizens was also highlighted. Furthermore, the discourses revealed that institutions still lack preparedness and show a lack of interest in modifying their structures to accommodate students with disabilities. The responsibility for the teaching and learning process falls on the shoulders of the professors, even though they have not received adequate training for this purpose.

The access of individuals with disabilities to higher education is still permeated by barriers, both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. The issue of persistence in higher education is still being addressed, necessitating specific public policies to ensure it. The academia, like other spaces of power, is a site of contention where intersections of race, class, gender, and disability play a significant role in determining who holds more power and who holds less in the social hierarchy. While there are individuals with disabilities who have attained master's and doctoral degrees, few occupy positions as professors/researchers in universities (^{CRESPO, 2009}). These findings reinforce the results of ^{Paiva's (2014}) study, which indicate that quotas often prioritize technical administrative positions, while positions in high-level management and leadership roles are not given priority under quota systems.

To disrupt the fissures of ableism in academia, it is necessary to conduct research and professional practices that challenge the hegemonic knowledge surrounding disability, enabling individuals with disabilities to occupy the position of subjects rather than mere objects of research. This study aimed to provide insights into issues related to the access and persistence of individuals with disabilities in higher education, serving as a foundation for the development of affirmative policies. However, there are limitations to qualitative research in this field, and it is important to consider other studies that specifically focus on professors with disabilities, different types of disabilities concerning access to higher education, mapping of selection processes for admission to postgraduate programs, and the accessibility of academic journals in producing accessible content.