暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

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.

Scientific research requires taking risks, as the most cautious approaches are unlikely to lead to the most rapid progress. Yet, much funded scientific research plays it safe and funding agencies bemoan the difficulty of attracting high-risk, high-return research projects. Why don\'t the incentives for scientific discovery adequately impel researchers toward such projects? Here, we adapt an economic contracting model to explore how the unobservability of risk and effort discourages risky research. The model considers a hidden-action problem, in which the scientific community must reward discoveries in a way that encourages effort and risk-taking while simultaneously protecting researchers\' livelihoods against the vicissitudes of scientific chance. Its challenge when doing so is that incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don\'t move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would. A social planner who prizes scientific productivity above researchers\' well-being could remedy the problem by rewarding major discoveries richly enough to induce high-risk research, but in doing so would expose scientists to a degree of livelihood risk that ultimately leaves them worse off. Because the scientific community is approximately self-governing and constructs its own reward schedule, the incentives that researchers are willing to impose on themselves are inadequate to motivate the scientific risks that would best expedite scientific progress.

Racism is embedded in the fabric of society at structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal levels, working as a mechanism that drives health disparities. In particular, stigmatized views of substance use get entangled with racialization, serving as a tool to uphold oppressive systems. While national health institutions have made commitments to dismantle these systems in the United States, anti-racism has not been integrated into biomedical research practice. The ways in which substance use researchers use and interpret race data-without engaging in structural racism as a mechanism of health inequity-can only be described as inadequate. Drawing upon concepts from the Public Health Critical Race praxis, QuantCrit, and an anti-racism research framework, we recommend a set of guidelines to help biomedical researchers conceptualize and engage with race more responsibly in substance use research.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。