The meeting may start at ten, but the conversation often begins before then. A question raised the week before may have already circulated through emails, surfaced after another meeting, or been discussed by colleagues familiar with the issue.
The meeting may begin at the same time for everyone, but participants do not necessarily enter the conversation from the same place. Some already know the issue and its history. Others are encountering the background, or even the question itself, for the first time. That difference matters when considering inclusion, particularly for people with disabilities, because the timing and way information is shared can affect how fully someone is able to participate.
The formal record may make participation look the same. The attendance list includes the same names, everyone receives the agenda, and the minutes capture the discussion. What the record cannot show is the context each person carries into the meeting, including prior conversations, established relationships, and access to information that may have shaped the discussion before it officially began.
A person with a disability may be present and receive the same formal materials without having access to the earlier exchanges that shaped the discussion. Presence may show membership, but it does not reveal how fully someone was included in the process.
The distinction often becomes clearer over time, as patterns of participation and decision-making begin to take shape within a group. Some information needs to be explained in the moment. Other ideas become familiar through experience, repetition, and continued interaction.
Earlier discussions can continue to influence later decisions, even when the original conversation is not raised again. As a group becomes more familiar with different experiences and perspectives, that understanding may begin to affect how people communicate, whose input is sought, and how participation is organized. Over time, the perspectives of people with disabilities can become part of those routines, influencing how information is presented, how discussion takes place, and how decisions are made.
Attendance records show who was present, but presence alone says little about the quality of participation. A meeting record may confirm that someone attended or served on a committee. It cannot show whether that person had enough information to contribute, whether their perspective was considered, or whether it affected the decisions that followed.
For a person with a disability, those questions may also involve whether the group’s usual ways of communicating and working supported meaningful participation. The missing measure lies in those details, beyond the simple fact that a person was present.
Researchers have explored what separates inclusion from simply being a member of a group. Shore and colleagues describe inclusion as involving two related conditions. The first is belonging, or feeling accepted, connected, and recognized as part of the group. The second is having the characteristics, experiences, and perspectives that make a person different recognized and valued (Shore et al., 2011).
Belonging alone does not necessarily mean that a person has influence. Someone may be welcomed into a group and still have little opportunity to shape its discussions, decisions, or practices. This distinction matters when considering disability. Inclusion is not limited to whether a person is present or officially part of the group. It also depends on whether disability-related experiences and perspectives are taken into account and whether different ways of participating can meaningfully affect how decisions are made and how the group operates.
A person can genuinely feel that they belong while some aspects of their experience remain separate from the way the group typically operates. A person with a disability may participate fully in meetings, projects, and conversations, yet still handle certain disability-related needs outside the group’s usual practices.
An accommodation may be available, but receiving it often depends on someone first identifying what is not accessible. A room may need to be rearranged, the timing of a meeting reconsidered, or a document made accessible after it has already been prepared. In each instance, the barrier becomes visible because the person affected by it has to raise the issue. When this happens repeatedly, responsibility for access stays with the individual instead of being shared through the group’s planning and routine practices.
Kenji Yoshino uses the term “covering” to describe the ways people may make a characteristic less visible or less prominent in their interactions with others (Yoshino, 2006). This can happen in subtle ways. A person may choose not to use a mobility aid in a particular setting, avoid mentioning fatigue or another limitation, or find a workaround for an inaccessible document rather than ask for a different format that works with assistive technology. In each case, the person is still participating. The barrier, and the effort required to work around it, may remain largely unseen.
Shore and colleagues describe a related pattern within groups as assimilation. A person may be accepted as part of the group, while the expectations for participation remain largely unchanged. Differences in experience, perspective, or need may be acknowledged without affecting how decisions are made or how work is organized. In practice, the person may still be expected to adapt to the group’s established ways of participating and contributing, while the group itself changes very little in response.
A similar issue can arise when recognition is tied to a particular role or subject. A person may be invited to speak about accessibility, participate on a disability-related panel, or offer perspective because of experience that is directly relevant to the discussion. That invitation recognizes the value of the person’s perspective, but it does not necessarily show how fully that perspective is included in the group’s broader work.
The limits of that involvement often become clearer when the conversation moves to another subject. A committee member may be asked regularly for input on accessibility, for example, but have a more limited role in discussions about budgets, staffing, priorities, or planning.
Shore and colleagues describe a pattern where a person’s perspective is recognized in one area without necessarily carrying into the group’s broader work (Shore et al., 2011). Looking at where a person is invited to contribute, and where that involvement becomes more limited, can help distinguish broader participation from involvement tied to a particular subject.
Membership alone does not fully describe inclusion. Inclusion also depends on whether differences in experience, perspective, or ways of participating have a meaningful place in the group’s work. Disability may shape participation in some situations without defining a person’s role in every discussion or decision.
Decision-making shows that participation is not the same at every stage. Learning about a decision after it has been made offers little opportunity to influence it, while being involved earlier allows a person to contribute before the choices are settled. That difference in timing can shape which options are considered, how the decision develops, and how much influence a person has over the result.
More recent research on inclusive decision-making builds on this idea by looking at how people are involved throughout the process (Huang, 2025). Participation may begin with access to information or an opportunity to respond. It can also include a more active role in developing options and shaping the decision as it takes form. Simply being involved does not show how much influence a person ultimately has. That influence may depend on when participation begins, what information is available at that stage, and whether meaningful choices remain open.
Participation can take different forms, and simply being present does not necessarily mean a person is fully included. Individual circumstances and perspectives need to be considered early enough to influence decisions and how those decisions are carried out. Access can be created in different ways, but timing still affects the degree of inclusion. There is a clear difference between considering a person’s needs from the beginning and addressing them only after decisions have already been made.
The choice of an event location shows how the timing of accessibility can shape a decision. Accessibility may be considered while several locations are still being reviewed, allowing it to influence which location is selected. It may also be considered only after a reservation has already been made. Both situations may result in an accessible location, but in the first, accessibility helps guide the decision rather than being addressed afterward.
The way information is prepared can create similar barriers. A document may contain everything a person needs and still be difficult to navigate with a screen reader, a tool that reads digital text aloud or presents it in another accessible form. Headings that are unclear or poorly organized can make it difficult to move through the document, while sections presented in an illogical order can make the information harder to follow. Nothing is necessarily missing, but accessing and understanding what is there may require more effort.
When accessibility is considered during preparation, it can be built into the document before it is distributed. When it is addressed only afterward, a second version may be needed once a barrier has already been identified. The information may ultimately be available in both situations, but the path to access is different. In one, accessibility is part of the original work. In the other, it is added after the work is complete.
That difference extends beyond documents to the way groups make decisions and establish routines. Participation is shaped not only through formal meetings, but also through repeated practices, informal conversations, and smaller choices that may never be documented. As people work together, some needs become familiar enough to influence planning without having to be raised again. Others remain outside the group’s usual way of working and must be reintroduced whenever a new decision is made.
A recurring meeting shows how that process can develop over time. The meeting may need to be scheduled around accessible transportation, particularly when rides must be arranged in advance. Once that need is understood, future schedules can account for it without requiring the same request each time. What began as a specific consideration gradually becomes part of the way the meeting is planned.
The physical setup of the meeting can develop in the same way. Chairs may be arranged to leave enough room for a mobility device. Once that need is understood, the arrangement can become part of the usual setup rather than something that must be requested before every meeting.
The same approach can shape how information is prepared. A document can be created from the beginning in a format that works with assistive technology and follows a clear, usable structure. Rather than creating an alternative version after a barrier is identified, the document distributed to the group can be accessible from the start.
The shift becomes most visible when these considerations no longer require separate attention. Meeting times, room layouts, and document formats can reflect what has been learned through previous experience. The same circumstances do not have to be explained each time. Instead, they become part of ordinary planning rather than adjustments made after decisions are already complete.
Attendance counts can still be useful, but they provide only a partial view. Representation can show who is present and who is absent. It can also reveal patterns over time.
Other questions are harder to answer. Do people have access to the information shaping a discussion? Do their perspectives affect decisions? Do they remain involved as the work develops? Those questions require a closer look at how participation actually works.
The framework developed by Shore and colleagues helps clarify these distinctions. A person can belong to a group without influencing its practices or decisions. Difference may also be recognized, but recognition alone does not determine how participation is structured or how much influence a person has.
Presence leaves a record. Influence is harder to see. Sometimes, its clearest evidence appears later. It can be found in what no longer has to be explained or reconsidered. The routines that remain may say more than what was recorded.
References
- Huang, H. (2025). Toward inclusive decision making: A systematic introduction of the mass-participation decision support framework. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102093
- Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
- Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. Random House.
Discover more from Wiley's Walk
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.