Accessibility Beyond Benevolence – Devoted and Disgruntled 20 (2025)
This is the report for a session called on Monday's action day, about moving approaches to accessibility (for artists and creatives as well as audiences) beyond something that is considered a nice, benevolent thing to do, and querying who decides who gets to be included.
Session called by Jessi Parrott; notes and assistance by Cerys Thomas-Ford; session report compiled by Jessi and Cerys by combining contributions of session participants
Jessi (a disabled and neurodivergent – as well as queer and trans – performer and creative, and a researcher specialising in disability representation and casting as employment issues in the arts) called this action session in response to several conversations they had with wonderful people across the weekend. These conversations have led Jessi to consider the fact that, actually, perhaps they no longer want to “be included”.
Why?
Inclusion implies exclusion – and raises questions about who is deciding who gets to be involved in processes, whether as artists, creatives or audience members, or crossing all of those boundaries.
Jessi brought a provocation to the group, asking everyone to consider how accessibility might be developed beyond benevolence, through thinking about who is allowed to “just be” in creative spaces, and how we facilitate that.
Participants raised issues around palatability and respectability politics – who is considered to fit within the expectations and norms of creative spaces, especially theatre venues?
They also shared ongoing concerns about the perceived “glamourisation” by “mainstream” venues of creative accessibility tools such as Audio Description (AD), British Sign Language (BSL), captioning and relaxed performances. These are still mostly an occasional offering, with a single option (or perhaps two if we’re lucky) for each provision across production schedules (such as a relaxed afternoon matinée). On a very basic level, this feels to participants like a form of virtue signalling, or paying lip-service, without a meaningful commitment. More concerningly, though, session attendees all agreed that it (at best) misunderstands and (at worst) dismisses practicalities. For instance, many people (including those calling and attending this session) have multiple accessibility needs – and deaf, disabled and neurodivergent people do (*gasp*) have jobs and other commitments, including in the creative industries.
Both of these issues mean we aren’t able just to drop everything to attend the one performance of a show that might meet some (though not necessarily all) of our accessibility needs. Especially when – as pointed out by attendees involved in liaising with venues regarding accessibility provisions – there is not much communication and consideration of mutual schedules. This can lead to multiple venues scheduling their “assisted/accessible/other catchy marketing term” performances on the same date, and they are not flexible in shifting.
Promoting better communication was highlighted as a major action point, as was an overhaul of booking systems, which – despite improvements – still do not facilitate the signalling/signposting of accessibility provision simply for either audiences or venues.
(An example given by a session attendee was that, in certain booking systems, the “AD” symbol for Audio Described performances is not readable by screen reader software, which means users can’t tell which performances will be accessible to them…!)
There are also inconsistencies where current accessibility schemes promise the need for only one form/card, but then each venue still requires specific information. We wondered whether this will be different with the new “All In” initiative from combined Arts Councils?
These issues led to a discussion about who is defining “reasonable adjustments” (i.e. the terminology used in the Equality Act 2010) and how this links back to ideas of palatability and respectability. Session attendees also asked why adjustments have to be “reasonable”, mentioning Arts Accessibility Champion and consultant (and all round awesome human) Andrew Miller’s desire for “unreasonable adjustment”. From there, discussions of work by deaf-, disabled- and neurodivergent-led companies who use accessibility as the basis of their creative aesthetics caused session attendees to query, ‘If we can, even imperfectly, make every show “inclusive and accessible” then why aren’t we?’
In attempting to answer this question, structures and funding inevitably came up, as at many other points throughout the weekend. This was not only mentioned in terms of the need for more money (and perhaps more specific space for audience-related budgeting around accessibility on application forms and portals, for Arts Councils and beyond), though. It was also raised in connection to the Purple Pound – the collective economic power of deaf, disabled and neurodivergent people as consumers – and how, this is capitalised on (or not).
Examples given at this point in the conversation were:
● (Negatively) Venues selling off accessible seating allocations (such as companion seats next to wheelchair spaces) for popular productions, believing that they can get away with this to make more money, because people who need those provisions won’t book. This is false economically and also blatant discrimination!
● (Positively) Changing Places toilets. Because these are essential for many people and their families, but they remain fairly rare and spread out, installing them can make venues a cultural hub for an area where users think, ‘I’ll come to a show/event/workshop here because I know I can go to the loo!’ If installing one isn’t feasible, venues can also consider mobile options like RevoLOO and Mobiloo.
● (Both positively and negatively) Online and hybrid options. After being vital for everyone, since lockdowns these seem to have largely disappeared, despite the continued presence of Covid-19. Whilst they don’t work for all audiences – and should definitely not replace accessible in-person provision! – they do help reach people who can’t attend live, and therefore bring in more money.
From these financial elements, we returned to broader creative considerations stemming from ideas around the benevolence in the session title – such as who is making decisions about which shows are acceptable for deaf, disabled and neurodivergent people, whether as audiences, artists or both. This is an example of what Jess Thom/Touretteshero (another awesome human) terms “cultural curation” and was linked by session attendees to discussions from earlier in the weekend about the lack of sensory shows for adults with complex and multiple needs (such as those labelled as having profound and multiple learning disabilities [PMLD]). It also points to some deep misunderstandings about how to “do” accessibility, what can be made accessible, who can do it, and who needs it. This led session attendees to share further examples of alternative practices, including (another awesome human, and D&Der!) Jenifer Toksvig’s Copenhagen Interpretation (which uses a similar formulation of Open Space to Devoted and Disgruntled as Improbable, and reconsiders what is encompassed in accessibility) and to propose some more general action points.
Actions not already discussed
● When arts venues and organisations are considering/arranging training and consultancy around accessibility, please engage trainers/consultants with lived experience of disability and impairment who also have experience of working in the arts. There are a lot of us now – and our knowledge and skills mean we can give you a much more bespoke offer than more general corporate consultants!
● The above action is not the same as telling you to ask deaf, disabled and neurodivergent people you encounter in a creative capacity for their advice on accessibility. There shouldn’t be additional burdens on people when we are just trying to work in and/or experience a show or production. Many performers and creatives do also work as consultants, but this should be paid in addition to our creative role(s) and not expected of us.
● Remember that there are also a lot of resources out there already (including in the D&D reports library) and it is fairly easy to research things and be prepared to a certain degree before you work with deaf, disabled and neurodivergent artists, creatives and audiences.
● Following all of the above actions, and the earlier observations made about the labour of having to share accessibility needs with multiple venues or organisations, consider reframing questions about accessibility to something like asking everyone, ‘This is accessibility provision we have offered in the past [list of examples appropriate to venue], would any of this be helpful to you?’ This has several uses but, most prominently: it doesn’t force people to disclose if they aren’t comfortable doing so, and it acknowledges that needs can change on different days and in different environments.
● Such an approach requires venues and organisations to be really clear about what is actually possible – describing what can be offered and letting people make up our own minds on whether it’s accessible to us. This avoids difficult situations that can come from saying, ‘We are fully accessible!’ (which is impossible anyway and doesn’t help anyone). Switching to this approach can seem scary, but honesty is helpful and refreshing and gives people accurate information to make choices. It also gives a basis from which to respond authentically when people offer feedback on provision – and so facilitates managing expectations.
● Additional benefits of the approach described above are that it allows deaf, disabled and neurodivergent audiences an element of spontaneity in our engagement with creative and cultural events and spaces – and that, for venues, being transparent about what is on offer emphasises responsiveness rather than reactivity.
● Putting the two previous points together, remember that modelling good practice is not just one event but creating relationships and spaces that people want to return to, from front-of-house to auditoria to dressing rooms to rehearsal spaces. For session attendees, this was found in the atmosphere at D&D, and several felt that Open Space should be used, where possible, at every stage of creative processes and cultural decision-making.
● As a final action, session attendees reinforced the need for a cultural shift, where – similar to integrated accessibility in productions – accessibility is integrated into wider society, and also into the arts in order for them to fulfil their role of being truly representative of that society. Attendees gave examples such as BSL and AD being taught at drama schools and in other training environments, allowing creative approaches to accessibility to be embedded and embraced within the fabric of what it means to learn to be a performer. There was also a hope that these might be embedded in more general education, but we decided to focus on the areas where we have the most direct opportunities to influence change.