The Temporal Disciplining of Doctoral Research in the Neoliberal Academy

The neoliberal agenda in higher education has led to expectations and targets of market-likeness in student enrolment and completion demographics through the widening participation agenda. However, the reality is that disadvantaged groups such as students with a disability and Indigenous students are still underrepresented, particularly in advanced research degrees. This disadvantage is compounded by the temporal disciplining imposed by bureaucratically-defined completion deadlines. Taking Australia as a paradigmatic case, this chapter explores the temporal disciplining of doctoral research in the broader context of neoTaylorism and the projectification of research. It argues that a care-inspired slowness is needed to counterbalance the harms created by the managerialist push for ‘timely' completion.

College Students With Disabilities Report Higher Rates of Food Insecurity

Objectives To characterize the prevalence of food insecurity among college students with and without disabilities. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected between 2018–2020 at a mid-size, northeast public university as part of the ongoing College Health and Nutrition Assessment Survey. An online survey collected self-reported data, including food security and disability status. Food security status was measured via the U.S Household Food Security Survey Module 6-Item Short Form, and categorized into very low, low, marginal, and high food security. Disability status was categorized into yes or no via affirmative answers to either one of two items related to limitations or use of specialized equipment. Chi-square was used to assess the differences in food insecurity prevalence among students with and without disabilities. Results The sample (n = 880) was 60.6% female, predominately white (94.3%), and had a mean age of 19 ± 1.2 years. One out of seven students (14.6%) reported a disability; 18.6% reported low or very low food security (13.2% and 5.5% respectively) and 81.4% reported high or marginal food security (67.6% and 13.8%, respectively). Students with a disability reported higher rates of food insecurity vs. those without a disability (35.9% vs. 16.0%, P < 0.001). Among students with a disability, 12.8% reported very low food security and 23.1% reported low food security, compared to 4.3% and 11.7%, respectively, among those students without disabilities. Conclusions College students with disabilities experienced far greater rates of food insecurity than students without disabilities. Further research, including qualitative work, can help to understand and develop better supports for this underserved segment of the college population. Funding Sources The New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project 1010738.

Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence in College Students With and Without a Disability

Objectives To characterize the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its criteria in students with and without a disability. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected between 2008–20 from the College Health and Nutrition Assessment Survey (CHANAS), a comprehensive, ongoing study at a northeastern public university. The five individual criteria of MetS were evaluated after an overnight fast: triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), glucose (FPG) via fingerstick; waist circumference (WC) at the iliac crest; and blood pressure (BP) via automated cuff. Disability status was self-reported via an online questionnaire by an affirmative response to one of two items related to limited participation or use of specialized equipment. Chi-square analyses were used to identify differences in the prevalence of MetS and its criteria among students with and without a disability. Logistic regression was used to predict odds of MetS; age, BMI, physical activity, alcohol consumption, gender, smoking status, race, and disability status served as covariates. Results The sample (n = 6144) was 69% female, 94% white, and 18.9 ± 1.15 years old; 11.8% of students reported having a disability. Over half (55.3%) of students met at least one criterion of MetS, 18% had two or more, and 4.2% had ≥3 criteria of MetS. MetS was higher among students with a disability compared to those without (6.2% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.003). WC, HDL, and FPG metabolic syndrome criteria presented modestly higher in the disabled population compared to their non-disabled counterparts: WC (14.4% vs. 11.6%, P = 0.023), HDL (28.9% vs. 25%, P = 0.017), and FPG (6.3% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.042). Logistic regression indicates similar odds of MetS for students with a disability after inclusion of covariates (OR: 1.05 CI: 0.7–1.7, P = 0.83), compared to students without a disability. Conclusions College students with disabilities may have a greater risk for metabolic syndrome compared to students without a disability due to other confounding lifestyle factors. Results may inform organizations on campus to better direct targeted health promotion campaigns and inspire further research on the health status of students with a disability. Funding Sources The New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project.

Practices of inclusion for carers who are higher education students

The role of unpaid and informal care is a crucial part of the health and social care system in Australia and internationally. As carers in Australia have received statutory recognition, concerted efforts to foster engagement in carer participation in work and education has followed. However, little is known about the strategies and policies that higher education institutions have implemented to support the inclusion of carers. This study has three components: first, it employs a review of evidence for interventions to support to support carers; second, it reviews existing higher education institutions’ policies to gauge the extent of inclusive support made available to student carers, and; third it conducts interviews with staff from five higher education institutions with concerted carer policies in Australia were held to discuss their institutions’ policies, and experiences as practitioners of carer inclusion and support. Results indicate difficulty in identifying carers to offer support services, the relatively recent measures taken to accommodate carers in higher education, extending similar measures which are in place for students with a disability, and difficulties accommodating flexibility in rigid institutional settings. A synthesis of these findings were used to produce a framework of strategies, policies and procedures of inclusion to support carers in higher education.

Supporting Inclusive Teaching Practice within a UK Further and Higher Education context.

The proportion of students with disabilities in Further and Higher Education has increased by 60% in recent years (Oxford Brookes University, 2014) with the highest rates in creative institutions (University of Leeds, 2015) (Richards and Finnigan, 2015). Students with a disability are less likely to get a good degree (2:1 or above), more likely to perceive their courses as low quality, and have a lower rate of employability than people without disabilities (Disabled Students Sector Leadership Group, 2017). The current research project aims to respond to such findings by supporting teaching staff to cultivate a culture of inclusive practice. This will be achieved by conducting a literature review, internal and external staff interviews, a student survey, and sharing comprehensive findings and recommendations.

Behind the Eight Ball: The Effects of Race and Number of Infractions on the Severity of Exclusionary Discipline Sanctions Issued in Secondary School

African American and Hispanic students receive more punitive school discipline than White students even when students of color commit similar infractions as Whites. Similarly, students with a disability status are more likely to experience harsher discipline in schools compared to their counterparts without a disability label. This study examines whether these discrepancies are a result of a difference in the number of infractions students of different racial/ethnic groups and disability categories commit. Using secondary educational data from a state educational agency in the United States, we demonstrate that African American and Hispanic students and students with an emotional behavioral disorder status receive more severe sanctions than White students and students without a disability label at their first discipline encounter. This racial disparity in discipline severity continues through six sanctions and is eliminated at the 13th sanction. The disability disparity in discipline severity dissipates after 10 sanctions for students with emotional behavioral disorder and intellectual disability. Implications for school personnel and future directions are discussed.

Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is a widely accepted pedagogical and policy principle, but its genesis has been long and, at times, difficult. For example, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights included statements about rights and freedoms that have, over the decades, been used to promote inclusive educational practices. Article 26 of the Declaration stated that parents “have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” This declaration later helped some parent groups and educators to advocate for equal access to schooling in regular settings, and for parental choice about where their child would be educated. Following the widespread influence of the human rights-based principle of normalization, the concept of inclusive education received major impetus from the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in the United States in 1975, the United Nations (UN) International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006. A major focus of the UN initiatives has been the right of people with a disability to participate fully in society. This focus has obvious consequences for the way education is provided to students with a disability or other additional educational needs. For many years, up to the last quarter of the 20th century, the major focus for such students was on the provision of separate specialized services, with limited attention to the concept of full participation in society. Toward the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century, there has been increasing acceptance, through parental action, systemic policy, and government legislation, of inclusivity as a basic philosophical principle. Both the type of instruction that should be provided to students with a disability and the location of that instruction in regular or specialized settings have been topics for advocacy and research, sometimes with mixed and/or controversial conclusions.