Review of Negotiating Disability: Disclosure and Higher Education edited by Stephanie L. Kerschbaum, Laura T. Eisenman, and James M. Jones

No abstract available.

Review of Negotiating disability: Disclosure and higher education by S.L. Kerschbaum, L.T. Eisenman, and J.M. Jones

No abstract available.

Disability Policies and Practices in Family Medicine Residencies: A CERA Study

Background and Objectives: Increasing the diversity of family medicine residency programs includes matriculating residents with disabilities. Accrediting agencies and associations provide mandates and recommendations to assist programs with building inclusive policies and practices. The purpose of this study was (1) to assess programs’ compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandates and alignment with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) best practices; (2) to understand perceptions of sources of accommodation funding; and (3) to document family medicine chairs’ primary source of disability-related information. Methods: Data were collected as part of the 2019 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance Chairs’ Survey. Respondents answered questions about disability policy, disability disclosure structure, source of accommodation funding, and source of information regarding disability. Results: Half (56%) of responding chairs reported maintaining a disability policy in alignment with ACGME mandates, while half (52%) maintain a disability disclosure structure in opposition to AAMC recommendations. Funding sources for accommodation were reported as unknown (32.9%), the hospital system (27.1%), or the departmental budget (24.3%). Chairs listed human resources (50.7%) or diversity, equity, and inclusion offices (23.9%) as the main sources of disability guidance. Conclusions: The number of students with disabilities in medical education is growing, increasing the likelihood that family medicine residency programs will select and train residents with disabilities. Results from this study suggest an urgent need to review disability policy and processes within departments to ensure alignment with current guidance on disability inclusion. Department chairs, as institutional leaders, are well positioned to lead this change.

The benefits of inclusion for disability measurement in the workplace

PurposeThe formal reporting of disability to an employing organization is inconsistent and likely an underestimate of the true numbers of workers with disabilities and the presence of various types of disabilities. This issue interferes with an organization's count of such workers, as well as efforts to set priorities and develop practices to support workers with disabilities. The authors argue that creating inclusive work environments not only improves worker well-being (as suggested in past research) but also improves their reactions to the process of formal reporting of disability in the workplace.Design/methodology/approachA sample of 160 working adults in the United States who reported disabilities or health conditions that may qualify as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990, as amended in 2008) completed a survey that measured perceptions of the workplace environment and reactions to a frequently used disability disclosure form.FindingsWhen controlling for age of respondents, anticipated disability stigma and inclusion in the workplace predicted different reactions to a disability disclosure request. Anticipated stigma was associated with more negative emotion, concerns about privacy and others' reactions to their responses on the disclosure form. Inclusion in the workplace was associated with higher ratings for appropriateness of the measure, positive emotion and less negative emotion.Originality/valueAlthough research has identified associations between workplace inclusion and general worker experiences, such as job satisfaction and intentions to quit, this work uncovers a benefit of inclusion to required measurement processes in organizations. The unique contributions of inclusion and implications for workplace practices are discussed.

Structural Barriers to Student Disability Disclosure in US-Allopathic Medical Schools

Introduction: Leaders in medical education have expressed a commitment to increase medical student diversity, including those with disabilities. Despite this commitment there exists a large gap in the number of medical students self-reporting disability in anonymous demographic surveys and those willing to disclose and request accommodations at a school level. Structural elements for disclosing and requesting disability accommodations have been identified as a main barrier for students with disabilities in medical education, yet school-level practices for student disclosure at US-MD programs have not been studied. Methods: In August 2020, a survey seeking to ascertain institutional disability disclosure structure was sent to student affairs deans at LCME fully accredited medical schools. Survey responses were coded according to their alignment with considerations from the AAMC report on disability and analyzed for any associations with the AAMC Organizational Characteristics Database and class size. Results: Disability disclosure structures were collected for 98 of 141 eligible schools (70% response rate). Structures for disability disclosure varied among the 98 respondent schools. Sixty-four (65%) programs maintained a disability disclosure structure in alignment with AAMC considerations; 34 (35%) did not. No statistically significant relationships were identified between disability disclosure structures and AAMC organizational characteristics or class size. Discussion: Thirty-five percent of LCME fully accredited MD program respondents continue to employ structures of disability disclosure that do not align with the considerations offered in the AAMC report. This structural non-alignment has been identified as a major barrier for medical students to accessing accommodations and may disincentivize disability disclosure. Meeting the stated calls for diversity will require schools to consider structural barriers that marginalize students with disabilities and make appropriate adjustments to their services to improve access.

Cripping Kairos: The Risky Rhetorical Performance of Autism Disclosure for the College Student

This article draws on qualitative interviews with one autistic student about his experiences accessing higher education, focusing on disability disclosure as a time-based rhetorical practice. I explore how Mike exploits the kairotic dimensions of autism disclosure in risky and contradictory ways to pursue his larger educational goals. Autistic students are often assumed to be unacceptably awkward, incapable of intentional stances, and fundamentally not rhetorical. These assumptions, however, obscure the complexity inherent in their rhetorical practices; this complexity is particularly salient in the timing of disability disclosure. I argue that Mike embodies a temporal expertise that expands the concept of crip time – often conceived as a delay or extension of normative time frames – to encompass time as a rhetorical resource for disabled rhetors.

A disability disclosure simulation as an educational tool

PurposeMany employers struggle with how to have a disability disclosure discussion with their employees and job candidates. The primary purpose of this study was to identify issues relevant to disability disclosure discussions. In addition, we explored how simulations, as an educational tool, may help employers and managers.Design/methodology/approachSeven participants (four employers and three human resource professionals) took part in this study. We used a qualitative design that involved two focus group discussions to understand participants' experiences of building a simulation training scenario that focused on how to have a disability disclosure discussion. The simulation sessions were audio-recorded and analyzed using an open-coding thematic approach.FindingsFour main themes emerged from our analysis. Three themes focused on issues that participants identified as relevant to the disability disclosure process, including: (1) creating a comfortable and safe space for employees to disclose, (2) how to ask employees or job candidates about disability and (3) how to respond to employees disability disclosure. A fourth theme focused on how simulations could be relevant as an educational tool.Originality/valueDeveloping a simulation on disability disclosure discussions is a novel approach to educating employers and managers that has the potential to help enhance diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Further, the process that we followed can be used as a model for other researchers seeking to develop educational training scenarios on sensitive diversity and inclusion topics.

“What should I say to my employer… if anything?”- My disability disclosure dilemma

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the key issues surrounding teacher/staff disability disclosures in the UK's further education (FE) sector.Design/methodology/approachIn total, 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted in a medium-sized FE college (case study) setting in the South East of England. To compare the experiences, views and perceptions of leaders, managers and teachers, interviews were carried out with leaders and managers who are accountable for ensuring disability legislation is adhered to, and with teachers who are responsible for complying with equality and disability legislation. The 15 interviewees who volunteered to take part in this research represent the various layers of the organisational structure and different academic departments in the college.FindingsTwo major themes discussed include: the desire for teaching staff to “come out” and make a disability disclosure and the perception of disability as a “deficit”. A number of staff that disclosed their hidden disabilities stated they would not do so again. To avoid the negative side effects, developing a “culture of disability disclosure” and providing long-term employer support are required.Research limitations/implicationsThis is an exploratory qualitative case study that highlights some of the key issues from a teacher/staff perspective. It is not meant to be generalisable research, but the ideas therein should help to develop a wider (empirical) research agenda.Originality/valueThere is an abundance of critical and sociological research concerning disability disclosure in general; there are also a number of scholarly studies that focus on disability issues from the student perspective. However, this is the first scholarly study that explores the key issues involving FE staff.