Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the unique and the complementary aspects of disability inclusion and diversity strategies and to offer insight for organizations to integrate disability within diversity frameworks.

The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with diversity and inclusion “champions” from large businesses to learn about policies, practices and processes for fostering disability inclusion. The businesses have all received national recognition for supporting employees with disabilities.

Interviewees described strategies to build, sustain and grow disability inclusion by framing disability similarly to other diversity categories. The champions suggested practices to improve disability inclusion initiatives within their organizations.

There is limited information on what organizations are doing to support disability inclusion in the workplace. This study builds on the existing literature and responds to calls for case information from business personnel to gather data about common and effective practices.

The 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.

A 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.

When 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.

Although 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.

In this chapter, we explore the role of disability-based employee resource groups (ERG) in implementing large organizations' disability inclusion strategies and how pandemic responses shaped the workplace treatment and inclusion of disabled employees.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with disability-based ERG members and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) professionals in large corporate settings. Then, we analyzed how pandemic-induced changes in the workplace impacted disability inclusion efforts and experiences of disabled employees.

Results from our study revealed that workplace disability inclusion responsibilities shifted to disability-based ERGs during the onset of the pandemic. Participants detailed how organizational disability inclusion practices and policies expanded through increased awareness among some employee bases and were de-prioritized to the point of erasure in other situations. Within the context of the pandemic, members of disability-based ERGs played an integral part in both enhancing visibility of disability and responding to instances of ableism in their respective organizations.

Findings provide context as to how shifting organizational contexts, such as pandemic related workplace policies, becomes disabling, and in turn illustrate the fluid nature of disability. By framing disability as an evolving (fluid) identity category and prioritizing the awareness of disabled perspectives, organizations can better support disabled employees in their future, overarching DEI strategies and approaches to workplace inclusion post-pandemic.

During the last decade, school districts throughout the United States have implemented inclusion programs utilizing a variety of models. A growing number of school districts are including all students with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities, into general education classrooms (Thousand & Villa, 1990). Although the term inclusion has no legal definition, and has been interpreted by educational professionals in a variety of ways, the concept has been in existence under the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of PL 94-142, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 101-476, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and most recently within PL 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997. According to IDEA (1997), public education agencies are required to ensure that: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [Authority 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)].The concept of inclusion has been defined in various ways within the literature. Catlett and Osher (1994) reviewed policy statements of professional organizations and found at least seven different definitions for inclusion. Currently, in education, inclusion is the term used when students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms for a portion of the school day (Falvey et al., 1995b). The term inclusion is differentiated from mainstreaming. Mainstreaming refers to the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate instructional support (Meyen, 1990). When students are mainstreamed, they are usually prepared prior to placement into general education and are expected to “keep up” with the general classroom expectations (Rogers, 1993). Students with disabilities who are mainstreamed receive the same or nearly the same curriculum as general education students and are expected to “fit” into the general curriculum and classroom. On the other hand, within inclusive programs, the general education teacher is expected to make adaptations to provide a suitable environment for students with disabilities. Within the literature on inclusion, there are a variety of interpretations of the definition of inclusion (e.g. Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Rogers, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1984). For the purposes of this chapter, inclusion is defined as programs in which students with disabilities (with the exception of gifted) are eligible for special education, have an individualized education program (IEP), and receive their education in general education classrooms using different, modified, and/or additional curricula from students without disabilities. This definition of inclusion is similar to “selective inclusion” as described by Zionts (1997). Selective inclusion refers to partial general education class placement of students with disabilities (Zionts). The assumption that this definition is based on is that general education is not always appropriate for every student; some students may benefit by receiving individualized services in addition to general education.

A shift from a medical model to a social model of including learners with disabilities has occurred over the past 25 years (Stella, Forlin, & Lan, 2007). This shift has impacted both preservice teacher preparation and in-service teacher professional development. This chapter utilizes a conceptual framework built on the work of Forlin and colleagues (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006; Stella et al., 2007) to guide teacher preparation and professional development. This conceptual framework provides a model for (1) addressing attitudes and perceptions; (2) increasing knowledge of disability policies, laws, and evidence-based practices for providing instruction in inclusive settings; (3) and increasing experiences with individuals with disabilities, including experiences within inclusive settings. In addition, the framework incorporates aspects of the context within which inclusion is to occur. Implications include recommendations for teacher training and professional development to improve inclusive education for learners with LID.

This chapter provides a framework for ethical decision making related to inclusive educational opportunities for secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) based on policies and practices in the United States. Relevant research findings are utilized to explore ethical principles involved in educational decision making for secondary students with I/DD, with discussions on how these are intertwined with U.S. policy. I/DD and inclusion, as described in the research literature and U.S. policy, are defined and the current status of inclusive practices are described. Next, an exploration of the rationale, as supported by empirical evidence, for educating students at the secondary level with I/DD, primarily with their peers who do not have identified disabilities, is shared along with the counter-narrative. Connections of inclusion to post-school outcomes and the lived educational experiences of students with and without disabilities and educators are considered, including ethical dilemmas and conflicts. Finally, factors influencing the application of inclusionary practices are provided.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the views of women with disability about their working lives in a company in the Barcelona metropolitan area which is unusual in that it employs more than twice the percentage of people with disabilities as the legally established quota (2 percent). The paper specifically addresses concealment of disability in a context provided by organizational inclusion policies.

Narratives from women with disabilities were developed within the case study of the firm to give voice to them and bring forward their perspectives on their own working experience in the organizational context.

The author found that in an arguably inclusive organizational context, unlike their experiences in other contexts, women could choose whether or not to conceal their disability. The organizational context allowed women to forget their disability, yet disability was vindicated in different ways. Emotions were varied and nuanced around feelings of pride, happiness, a wish for independence, pain and relief.

The research was done in a specific organization with an unusually high percentage of employees with disability. While results cannot be generalized to other companies, this research can aid understanding of what the processes of inclusion may involve for employees, and for those organizations that choose to engage in inclusive practices.

The results of this research are relevant for managers and policy makers in order to obtain insights about how inclusive policies may be perceived by those to whom they are addressed.

Disability inclusion in organizations is part of disability inclusion in societies. Disability affects 15 percent of the world population. Addressing inclusion processes of people with disability is socially relevant and needed.

In contrast to previous research, disability inclusion processes are examined though the voices of the women with disabilities working in the company.

The purpose of this study is to determine the nature of financial inclusion for individuals with various types of disabilities.

Data from 2015, 2017 and 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services was pooled, and binary logistic regressions were used to investigate differences in barriers to financial inclusion (e.g. unbanked) between people with different types of disabilities (e.g. cognitive) and those without such disabilities.

Using five separate barrier measures, the authors found specific disability types face different barriers to financial inclusion. For example, respondents with cognitive, ambulatory or two or more disabilities were more likely to use nonbank transaction products and alternative financial services. And, those with vision or cognitive disabilities were more likely to be denied or receive reduced credit. When examining aggregate barriers to financial inclusion (total number of barriers faced) respondents with cognitive, ambulatory, hearing or two or more disabilities experienced the lowest degree of financial inclusion in the authors’ dataset.

Causal inference cannot be made due to the cross-sectional nature of the data. The data only covers the US population, and the measurement of disability type could include those with short-term impairments. Further, there may be an omitted variable bias.

Best practices to maximize financial inclusion for those with different disability types should address accessibility issues, bank staff education, financial literacy education and poverty issues. Additional government policies and oversight are also needed to protect and enhance the overall financial inclusion of people with disabilities.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to examine the relationship between various barriers to financial inclusion and aggregate barriers to financial inclusion by disability type. Specific disability types are found to face different barriers to financial inclusion.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding for the social inclusion of disabled performers in a developing country to create awareness and improve policies/practices.

The study employed qualitative methodology, and data were collected through semi-structured interviews, site visits/observations and review of secondary data.

The data from different respondent groups showed the social inclusion should be reviewed at three levels: the state, society and individual. The review of existing policies revealed the neglect of the state regarding disabled people in general and even more so in performing arts due to the lack of enforcement of national and international agreements. Findings indicate that social inclusion of disabled performers is a minor issue, especially in a developing country where access to basic human rights and needs may be difficult. Amidst such difficulties, performing arts is not seen as a priority compared to other needs of disabled people and performers.

Limitations include the limited number of disabled performers who could be identified and were willing to participate in the study. Those working in venues/public offices were also reluctant to participate. The greatest limitation was the broad lack of interest in disabled performers.

In Türkiye, studies on disabled people tend to focus on basic needs like health, education and employment. None, to best of researchers' knowledge, explore the social inclusion of disabled performers. This is an original study because it collects and discusses primary data on this topic, revealing the state-level negligence/oversight, the apathy of society and the degree to which an individual with disabilities must struggle to participate in performing arts. Consequently, this study shows the difficulty of developing social inclusion, equality and diversity in an emerging economy for disabled performers to raise awareness and present grounds for further legal enforcement. Moreover, implications allow for a global understanding of social inclusion that moves beyond a biased or privileged understanding/critique of disability centered on the developed world.

Inclusive education in the United States has been a focus of government policy for the past 30 years. The underlying goals of the inclusive education movement are to provide the most efficient and effective education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. In response to federal and state mandates, students with disabilities increasingly are being educated in more inclusive settings. One way to measure the success of inclusion is to examine graduation rates for students with disabilities. Although accountability related to state curriculum standards and standardized test scores is important, graduation rates may be the critical factor in deciding whether current educational policy is resulting in successful outcomes for students. To determine the effects of inclusion, a statewide study was conducted to look for trends in inclusion and corresponding graduation rates for students with mild disabilities. The researchers examined the records of 67,749 students with mild disabilities in Georgia during a six-year period to determine the amount of time spent in general education classrooms and the graduation rates for each year’s cohort of students. Results indicated a 62% increase in the percentage rate in inclusion for students with mild disabilities, while graduation rates for students with mild disabilities remained stable (+0.4%) at less than 30% during that same period. This chapter will describe the results of this study, discuss barriers to graduation, and present inclusive practices that support students with mild disabilities.