A diffusion of innovation in disability resource centres and library access for patrons with visual impairments in a Zimbabwean university

Purpose This paper examines how a disability resource centre (DRC), treated as an institutional innovation, is taken up and embedded in one Zimbabwean university library, and what this means for access by patrons with visual impairments. Drawing on Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) theory and the social model of disability, the study examines technological enablers alongside severe structural barriers such as inadequate infrastructure, limited funding and staff constraints. Hence, by comparing institutional accounts against the lived experiences of patrons, the research offers critical insights into patron participation, organisational coordination and the persistent challenges of achieving equitable academic inclusion. Design/methodology/approach An interpretivist qualitative case study examined a DRC at a Zimbabwean university to understand how its provision is embedded and experienced. The study drew on 24 participants across six stakeholder cohorts, employing questerviews, face-to-face interviews, one focus group discussion and direct observation. Data were transcribed, open-coded inductively and subsequently mapped to constructs from Rogers' DOI theory, including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity and observability. These constructs were interpreted through the social model of disability to evaluate whether the Centre's technological uptake fosters genuine academic inclusion or reproduces institutional barriers. Findings Braille and screen readers enabled independent access, but inadequate infrastructure (21 of 24 participants) and financial constraints (19 of 24) were widely raised barriers. Participants proposed infrastructure investment, needs assessment, staff training and better communication and networking. The DRC is about two kilometres from the main library; no joint working was observed, and no patron with a visual impairment was observed using the main library, which cannot show how often patrons use it. Six of seven patrons raised limited involvement in planning, whereas DRC staff described responding to requests as they arose. Research limitations/implications Evidence comes from one university and cohorts of two to six, with only seven participants having lived experience of visual impairment. Counts show how many participants raised a topic, not its priority or severity. Transfer is analytic, not statistical and two case-derived propositions are offered for testing, not as findings. Practical implications Patron participation in planning and needs assessment and piloted working links between the DRC and the main library, follow from this case; other recommendations reaffirm established practice. Social implications Improved provision at the DRC would support fuller academic and social integration of patrons with visual impairment, reducing the risk that they remain confined to a separate facility rather than participating in mainstream university life. It would also strengthen the institution's compliance with national and international disability rights frameworks, signalling a genuine rather than symbolic commitment to inclusion. More broadly, normalising accessible practice within library systems could help shift campus culture towards treating disability accommodation as a shared institutional responsibility rather than a peripheral, donor-dependent concern. Originality/value While most identified barriers and recommendations confirm earlier empirical findings, this study's distinct contribution lies in evaluating a DRC as an institutional coordinating structure rather than a mere repository of assistive technologies. Hence, by explicitly comparing institutional staff accounts with the lived experiences of patrons with visual impairments, the paper reveals critical gaps between service provision and user involvement in planning. Furthermore, by integrating Rogers' DOI theory with the social model of disability, the study demonstrates how organisational arrangements and resource allocation priorities directly influence whether technological adoption translates into genuine academic inclusion.