背景:残疾人在高等教育中的代表性不足,面临系统性障碍,如无法进入的通信和物理环境,以及难以获得住宿。本研究旨在通过对残疾研究人员的保密定性访谈,揭示研究机构中无障碍和残疾包容的障碍。
方法:我们通过虚拟传单招募参与者。资格标准包括在美国(U.S.)作为申请资助(过去五年)的研究人员工作,自我识别为残疾。我们为参与者(总共n=35)提供了根据他们的喜好进行半结构化一对一现场或书面采访的选择。两名研究小组成员使用主题分析来分析书面和现场回复,以确定主题。
结果:主题包括身份/可见性,职业轨迹,可访问性,住宿,偏见,representation,和包容。一些参与者报告说,由于担心同龄人或潜在雇主的负面看法,他们没有在工作或招聘过程中披露自己的残疾。在专业关系中以及与残疾人服务办公室互动时,都注意到围绕污名和偏见的经验,强调确保住宿的过程中的困难和延误。受访者强调了缺乏残疾包容性和残疾人在学术界的代表性低,并提高了自我宣传以及榜样和导师在为未来的残疾研究人员塑造职业道路方面的重要性。
结论:残疾研究人员在学术机构遇到系统性障碍,缺乏对这些经验的认可和研究阻碍了体制和政策的变化。为了减少残疾研究人员的差距,学术领导力必须分配资源来解决能力问题,创造更具包容性的环境,并提高标准,超越遵守美国残疾人法案。
BACKGROUND: People with disabilities are underrepresented in higher education, facing systematic obstacles such as inaccessible communication and physical environments and difficulties obtaining accommodations. This study aims to shed light on barriers to accessibility and disability inclusion in research institutions through confidential qualitative interviews with researchers with disabilities.
METHODS: We recruited participants via virtual flyers. Eligibility criteria included working in the United States (U.S.) as researchers that had applied for grant funding (last five years), and self-identifying as having a disability. We offered participants (total n = 35) the option of either semi-structured one-on-one live or written interviews based on their preference. Two study team members analyzed written and live responses using thematic analysis to identify themes.
RESULTS: Themes included identity/visibility, career trajectories, accessibility, accommodations, bias, representation, and inclusion. Some participants reported not disclosing their disabilities at work or during hiring processes due to fear of negative perceptions from peers or potential employers. Experiences around stigma and bias were noted both in professional relationships and when interacting with disability service offices, underscoring difficulties and delays in processes to secure accommodations. Respondents highlighted the lack of disability inclusion and low representation of people with disabilities in academia and elevated the importance of self-advocacy and of role models and mentors in shaping career pathways for future researchers with disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers with disabilities encounter systematic barriers at academic institutions, and lack of acknowledgement and research on these experiences has held back institutional and policy changes. To reduce disparities for researchers with disabilities, academic leadership must allocate resources to address ableism, create more inclusive environments, and raise standards beyond compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.