Dismantling Ableism Survey: Perceptions and Impacts of Ableism at UM

Introduction

The Dismantling Ableism: Institutional Action and Accountability survey (DAS) was administered in November-December 2023 to University of Manitoba students, faculty, and staff who self-identified as disabled or as having chronic health conditions.1,2 

Disability is not a singular experience, nor are disabled people a homogeneous group. People encounter different barriers and forms of ableism. Moreover, two people with similar impairments will also experience disability differently as personality, circumstance, privilege, and intersectional identities contribute toward their complex identity. 

“Experiences of inequities are particular to the type of chronic health issues [or] disability. When paired with intersectional issues such as race, class, etc., these inequities become more pervasive.” 

This results report is one in a series highlighting student, staff, and faculty experiences of ableism and inaccessibility at UM. It is intended to diversify understandings of ableism in academia through the presentation of disaggregated results that indicate differences among those who may share one or more broad socio-demographic characteristics such as Indigenous, racialized, or disability identities, gender, or sexuality.3 We emphasize disaggregated data to acknowledge intersectional marginalization to decenter Whiteness, colonialism, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and cisnormativity within anti-ableism action. 

Comparing the experiences of intersectionally marginalized groups is not intended to set these groups in competition with one another or to focus only on barriers and the ways in which they are “disadvantaged”, rather than their agency and vast array of achievements and skills. Rather, disaggregated analysis emphasizes experiences and voices that are often overlooked to pinpoint the concrete actions that will have the most widespread positive impacts on the entire UM community.

Language

The DAS used identity-first language (disabled persons) rather than person-first language (persons with disabilities) to acknowledge the disabling effect of social, environmental, and institutional barriers which hinder disabled individuals’ full participation in society, including university life.4

Similarly, the survey also used the term “chronic health conditions”, broadly defined as any condition, including mental health conditions, that is continuing or that occurs again and again over a long period of time, which in interaction with various barriers, may hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.5

Positionality

Researchers bring their experiences, identities, and biases to their work. The DAS team members identify with various systemically marginalized identities, including disability and chronic health-related identities. These lived experiences are assets, but we recognize that our personal intersections of privilege also influence our work. Our commitment to research quality includes an openness to concerns and criticisms. Please feel free to send feedback on the DAS results to the Office of Equity Transformation at Equity@umanitoba.ca.

Footnotes

1. The survey was funded by the Robbins-Ollivier Award for Excellence in Equity.
2. The final sample size for the DAS, after data cleaning, is 544.
3. For example, do those who identify with cognitive disabilities feel more or less safe at UM than those identifying with physical or sensory disabilities? Do those who identify as disabled and as either bisexual or pansexual encounter more ableist microaggressions than their heterosexual counterparts?
4. Language choices were explained in the survey introduction; nevertheless, the DAS project team respects that members of disability and chronic health communities have diverse language preferences, including person with a disability, chronically ill, and episodic disability, for example. The team is grateful for all of the feedback we received regarding language and it will inform our work going forward.
5. Adapted from Bernell, S., & Howard, S. W. (2016). Use your words carefully: What is a chronic disease? Frontiers in Public Health, 4, 159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00159 and the United Nations.

Report content

This summary describes:

  • Respondents’ personal experiences, including experiences of ableism, at UM (e.g., barriers encountered on campus, and additional costs and unpaid labour associated with having disabilities or chronic health conditions, etc.);
  • Perceptions of institutional ableism across UM (e.g., how committed respondents believe UM is to dismantling ableism and how they believe disabilities are thought of at UM, etc.); and
  • The impacts of ableism including respondents’ views on safety and identity sharing at UM, and their level of emotional exhaustion.

This summary presents select univariate findings to give readers a sense of the DAS sample’s overall scores on key measures (i.e., the combined responses of all students, staff, and faculty who completed the DAS).

Methodological notes

  • Univariate analyses produce results for individual variables or survey questions (e.g., perception of safety), whereas bivariate analyses involve two variables and can identify differences between groups (e.g., undergraduate vs. graduate students’ perceptions of safety). As such, this report does not include statistical comparisons
  • Univariate results can obscure important group differences. For example, univariate analyses may show that, overall, most DAS respondents “never” or “rarely” experienced ableist microaggressions in the last year. However, this does not mean everyone had this experience. Bivariate analyses identify which groups experienced significantly more (or fewer) ableist microaggressions than others
    • Results highlighting statistically significant bivariate differences between groups in the DAS sample are presented in the remaining results reports (e.g., results specific to respondents with marginalized genders or sexualities, and respondents who identify with mental or emotional health-related disabilities or chronic health conditions)
  • Group-specific results are presented in this summary only when survey questions were designed to take primary affiliation into account (e.g., equity questions created to be relevant to the unique experiences of students, staff, and faculty)
  • Unless otherwise noted, “agree” stands for all of those who agreed and strongly agreed with the statement in question; and “disagree” stands for all of those who disagreed and strongly disagreed.

Personal experiences at UM

Participation at UM

  • Less than two-thirds of respondents (61%) are satisfied with their current level of participation at UM
  • 42% indicate that accessibility barriers prevent their desired level of in-person participation
  • Only 23% indicate that accessibility barriers prevent their desired level of remote participation

Access to Social Support at UM

  • Only one-third of respondents (33%) say they can access social support at UM when they need it
  • More than one-third (39%) do not feel like a part of the UM community
  • Less than one-quarter (21%) have opportunities to interact with other disabled people and people managing chronic health conditions who are open about their identities at UM

Barriers Experienced in a Typical Month

Overall, respondents generally indicated they “never” or “rarely” experienced the various barriers highlighted in the DAS6. Nevertheless, the following barriers are experienced at least “sometimes” by DAS respondents in a typical month:

  • Getting to their campus (57%)
  • Getting around their campus (38%)
  • Accessing appropriate study or work spaces (55%)
  • Barriers related to a lack of in-person options (37%)

And barriers related to work methods and expectations were even more common:

  • Barriers related to a lack of hybrid options (63%)
  • Meeting deadlines or due dates (69%)
  • Meeting productivity expectations (72%)
  • Meeting work pace expectations (66%)
  • Meeting weekly work hour expectations (66%)

IT-related Barriers

Generally, respondents found it “easy” to access or use various IT and communications systems. Yet, respondents encountered the most barriers in the following four areas:

  • UM Intranet (SharePoint) (34% difficult to access or use)
  • Various UM software (e.g., Aurora, Banner, etc.) (29% difficult to access or use)
  • UM websites (26% difficult to access or use)
  • UM learning technologies (22% difficult to access or use)

Regarding virtual meeting platforms, Zoom was rated best for large and small group meetings (only 7% found it difficult, overall). Teams and Webex were rated more difficult (17% found both of these options difficult, overall).

It is important to note that the DAS was administered in November-December 2023. As such, the results may not reflect recent (and ongoing) efforts to improve accessibility for specific information and communications systems at UM, including the work undertaken to meet the Accessibility for Manitobans Act Information and Communications Standard (AMA-IC), and WCAG 2.1 standards.

Additional “Expert” Labour

Generally, respondents indicated their various interactions on campus were neutral or somewhat positive7. However, numerous students, faculty, and staff indicated they perform extra labour involving educating others on disability and accommodations, and that they are expected to be an expert on these topics.

  • About one-quarter to one-third of students perform the additional labour of educating others and serving as an expert on disability and accommodations across their various interactions (e.g., peers and instructors or supervisors)
  • Relatively more students report doing this work than faculty and staff (about one-quarter or fewer faculty and staff report doing this kind of work)
  • The vast majority (75%+) of students that do this work find these roles mentally and emotionally exhausting; and students indicate they more often do this work for their peers, and instructors or academic supervisors, as opposed to staff at UM

Ableist Microaggressions Experienced in the Last Year

Respondents generally indicated they “never” or “rarely” experienced various ableist microaggressions in-person in the past year.

The two microaggressions respondents experienced most often in-person were:

  • Someone downplayed the effects of your disability (15% often or very often)
  • You were told you look “too healthy” to be disabled (13% often or very often)

Similarly, respondents generally indicated they “never” or “rarely” experienced various ableist microaggressions in the past year online.

Again, the most frequently experienced remote microaggression was:

  • Someone downplayed the effects of your disability (8% often or very often)

Exclusion, Incivility, and Harassment

Most respondents indicate they are “never” or “rarely” excluded or mistreated in-person at UM:

  • Excluded or left out in your home department or unit (87% never or rarely)
  • Excluded or left out at UM in general (86% never or rarely)
  • Heard insulting, derogatory, or offensive language or remarks (82% never or rarely)
  • Experienced hostile or intimidating behaviours (88% never or rarely)

Similarly, most respondents indicate they are “never” or “rarely” excluded or mistreated when they are remote or virtual.

  • Excluded or left out in your home department or unit (90%+ never or rarely)
  • Excluded or left out at UM in general (90%+ never or rarely)
  • Heard insulting, derogatory, or offensive language or remarks (90%+ never or rarely)
  • Experienced hostile or intimidating behaviours (90%+ never or rarely)

Degree, Program, or Career Progression

  • Nearly two-thirds (64.5%) feel “behind others”
  • Less than one-third (29%) feel “on track with others”
  • Only 6% feel like they are “ahead” of others

Footnotes

6. This block of questions asked respondents how often they encounter the following barriers in a typical month: barriers getting to their campus, barriers getting around campus, barriers related to accessing appropriate work or study spaces, barriers related to a lack of in-person options, barriers related to a lack of hybrid options, barriers related to deadlines or due dates, barriers related to meeting productivity expectations, barriers related to meeting work pace expectations, and barriers related to meeting work hour expectations.

7. “Somewhat” refers to the fact that respondents only usually “agree” that they had positive interactions (e.g., were treated with respect), but they did not “strongly agree”.

Perceptions of Institutional Ableism at UM

Attitudes toward Disabilities at UM

DAS respondents’ perceptions of attitudes toward disability at UM are relatively poor, overall, with more than half indicating negative perceptions, such as:

  • 59.5% agree that “UM practices and policies treat disabilities as individual medical problems”
  • 54% agree that “UM employees treat disabilities as individual medical problems”
  • Less than half (46%) agree that “disabled people are seen as capable of handling the demands of academia”
  • 53% agree that “disabilities thought of negatively, as issues needing to be ‘fixed’”
  • 72% agree that “UM would rather keep things the same than make significant change to increase equity for disabled people”
  • Only 21% agree that “others at UM are well-informed about disabilities and disability-related issues”

Higher percentages of respondents assert UM expects disabled people as part of the community, but welcoming people with disabilities and chronic health conditions is insufficient if ableism persists across the institution.

  • 78% agree that “UM expects disabled people to be present in-person
  • 66% agree that “UM expects disabled people to be present virtually” 
  • Less than one-third (29%) believe that “UM does not welcome disabled people as members of the community”

UM’s Commitment to Dismantling Ableism

  • Only 20% agreed that “UM understands how many barriers still exist for disabled people”
  • Only 27% agreed that “UM acknowledges the systemic impact of barriers on disabled people”
  • Only 21% agreed that “The University is taking responsibility for eliminating these barriers at UM”
  • Only 22.5% agreed that “The University is taking action to dismantle these barriers”

Student-identified inequities

Overall, student respondents indicated they experience ongoing inequities including, but not limited to:

  • “Assessment options in my classes are too limited for me” (56% agree)
  • “Class materials are adequately accessible for me” (45% agree)
  • “It is taking significantly longer for me to complete my degree or program than my non-disabled peers” (62% agree)
  • “It is challenging to find suitable mentors” (57% agree)

Staff-identified inequities

Staff also identified ongoing inequities with career implications:

  • “I have as much access to professional and skill development opportunities as my non-disabled co-workers” (68% agree)
  • “It is challenging for me to find suitable mentors” (42% agree)
  • “I have as much access to promotion and advancement opportunities as my non-disabled co-workers” (44% agree)

Of those that said they do not have as much access to promotion and advancement as their non-disabled co-workers, 63% agreed that “attitudes toward my disability and disability in general have prevented me from accessing or pursuing promotion or advancement opportunities at UM”.

Faculty-identified inequities

Faculty perceive the most inequity around the tenure and promotion (T&P) process and leadership opportunities:

  • 64% agree T&P is biased against disabled faculty
  • 63% feel like senior leadership roles are not a realistic option for them

The percentage results indicate several other areas still needing serious improvement, for example:

  • 55% feel that faculty do not have as much access to accommodations at UM as others
  • 52% say it is difficult to find suitable mentors
  • Slightly less than 40% indicate they receive sufficient resources to reach their functional capacity to conduct their research and teach their classes

Faculty were also asked a series of questions regarding service work which, again, indicates specific areas needing attention:

  • Only 50% agree they “receive enough resources and support to fully engage with my [service] commitments”
  • Only 13% agree that “when asked to provide a disability or chronic health perspective, my input is valued and meaningfully incorporated”
  • Less than half (43%) feel that “the service I do is producing meaningful change”

But there are also some relatively more encouraging findings regarding service:

  • 68% disagree that “because I am disabled or managing chronic health conditions, I receive excessive service requests”
  • 84% disagree that they are “mostly seen as an expert on disability or chronic health in my service work”

Additional Costs

Survey respondents assert there are additional costs that accompany disability and chronic health identities at UM. 

  • About half (49%) agree they must “spend a lot more money” to be a student or employee at UM because they have a disability or chronic health condition
  • More than half (58%) agree they must “do a lot more unpaid labour” to be a student or employee at UM8 because they have a disability or chronic health condition

Footnotes

8. Compared to their respective non-disabled counterparts (students, faculty, and staff).

Impacts of Ableism

Personal Impact of Ableist Attitudes at UM

  • 41% of respondents agree that they “feel that others think I’m faking my disabilities or chronic health conditions”
  • 37% of respondents agree that “others question my intelligence or competence because I am disabled or have chronic health conditions”
  • 59% of respondents feel they “must work harder than others to prove I belong at UM”
  • 78% of respondents “feel pressure to downplay the impact of my disabilities or chronic health conditions”

Perceptions of Safety

Nearly half of respondents (48%) consider their primary campus to be safe or very safe for themselves, personally. When asked how safe various areas on campus are (e.g., libraries, offices, classrooms, etc.), respondents tended to either say they were neutral or leaned toward “safe”. 

Respondents personally felt the least safe:

  • Getting to campus (18% unsafe or very unsafe)
  • In recreational and active living spaces (17.5% unsafe or very unsafe)

Respondents are relatively less optimistic about how safe their campuses are for others with disabilities, however. 

  • Only 28.5% consider their primary campus to be safe for disabled people and those with chronic health conditions, in general 

Respondents assert the most dangerous experiences for those with disabilities and chronic health conditions, in general, are: 

  • Getting to campus (37% unsafe or very unsafe)
  • Getting around campus (33.5% unsafe or very unsafe)

Sharing Identities

Overall, respondents express concern about sharing their disability and chronic health identities at UM:

  • Nearly half (45.5%) do not think it is safe for people to share their identities at 
  • 76% would only feel comfortable sharing with a few select individuals
  • 75% are worried that sharing would negatively affect their career or studies

In addition, more than half (58.5%) indicate they have had to share their identities with someone at UM when they would rather not have.

Emotional Exhaustion

Unfortunately, DAS respondents agree that they are burned out and exhausted, overall. Moreover, about half of respondents link these feelings to ableism at UM:

  • 86% “feel drained from my work or studies”
  • 83.5% feel “used up at the end of the work or school day”
  • 78% feel “burned out from my work of studies”
  • 57% feel “frustrated by the ableist barriers I encounter in my career, degree, or program” 
  • 49% are “exhausted by the ableist barriers I encounter at UM in general" 

Dismantling Ableism Survey (DAS) Keep reading

Download the full Dismantling Ableism Survey report (PDF)