This thesis explores how accessibility at TU Delft is understood, experienced, and addressed, and how it might be reshaped into a more connected, inclusive, and proactive practice. It treats accessibility not only as a technical matter of compliance but also as a question of culture, governance, and everyday practice.

The research followed a modified Systemic Double Diamond. In the exploratory phase, literature review was combined with observations of the TU Delft context. Interviews, a survey, and two process probes revealed barriers, how they are encountered, and how reporting systems function in practice. These insights reframed accessibility from isolated problems into a systemic challenge shaped by structures, mindsets, and power dynamics. A design futuring process was then used to develop scenarios and a preferred future vision, which was tested and refined in two co-creation workshops with stakeholders.

The findings show that accessibility at TU Delft is fragmented and often reactive. Formal and informal initiatives exist but remain poorly connected. Reporting channels are unclear, feedback is limited, and responsibilities are not well defined. Improvements usually follow complaints or external pressure rather than being anticipated, and progress is slowed by a culture of perfectionism and compliance.

To respond to these complex challenges, I developed a set of strategic tools. The Framework translates the main findings into three focus areas, mindset, systems, and governance, with inclusive design as a connecting strand. It provides a way to understand accessibility as an institutional process rather than a checklist. The Agency × Understanding Matrix makes visible where different actors currently stand and where the greatest leverage for change lies. Two entry points were designed in response: the “Access Follows Who?” campaign which makes exclusion visible and reframes accessibility as a shared cultural issue, and the “Pathways of Access” workshop, which uses lived experience as a starting point, bringing stories and examples of exclusion into dialogue with institutional actors to clarify roles and responsibilities. A strategic and a tactical roadmap translate these ideas into a sequence of actions, combining immediate steps, such as clearer reporting and feedback loops, with longer-term changes, including embedding accessibility officers in faculties and connecting accessibility to the broader social safety infrastructure.

Evaluation sessions confirmed the relevance of these tools and highlighted the importance of follow-up, visible responsibility, and alignment with institutional priorities. The project concludes that accessibility at TU Delft should not be treated as an afterthought or a checklist. Instead, it needs to be understood as hospitality and justice: a commitment that shapes systems, culture, and daily life.