Dismantling Ableism Survey: Staff and Faculty Accommodations Experiences 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 highlights some of the experiences of staff and faculty respondents who need or are currently receiving accommodations.

Who needs accommodations?

  • 43% of staff and faculty respondents need an accommodation to fully participate at UM 
  • Another 37% are unsure if they require accommodations 
  • Staff and faculty who are mostly or fully remote are more likely to require an accommodation (65%), as compared to those with hybrid work arrangements (41%) and those who mostly work in-person6 (35%) 
  • Those that have multiple disabilities are more likely to require accommodations than those with one disability7 (67% vs. 47%) 
  • Staff and faculty who describe their disability or chronic health condition(s) as “sometimes noticeable” more likely to be unsure if they require accommodations (42%) than those whose disabilities or chronic health conditions are "rarely or not at all" (33%) and "often or always noticeable to others"8 (29%)

Footnotes

6. X2 (4, 255) = 13.2, p =<.05, V = 0.16 
7. X2 (2, 91) = 9.2, p =<.05, V = 0.32 
8. X2 (4, 254) = 13.9, p =<.01, V = 0.17

Whose needs are not currently being met?

  • Only 30% of staff and faculty who need (or are unsure if they need) accommodations are currently receiving them
  • 81.5% of staff and faculty identifying with mental or emotional health-related disabilities who need accommodations are not receiving them, as compared to staff and faculty with cognitive disabilities (75%) and physical or sensory disabilities who need accommodations9 (52.5%)
  • 25% of staff and faculty who need (or unsure if they need) accommodations have been denied an accommodation at some point10
  • Those who work mostly or fully remotely are marginally more likely to have been denied accommodations (37.5%) than those who work mostly or fully in-person (24%) and those with hybrid work arrangements11 (19%)

Footnotes

9. X2 (4, 188) = 12.8, p =<.05, V = 0.19
10. This includes both formal and informal accommodations.
11. X2 (2, 181) = 5.0, p =<.10, V = 0.17. These results are only significant at the .10 alpha level, indicating there is a 10% chance we have wrongly rejected the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between type of work participation and being denied accommodations.

Why are staff and faculty denied accommodations?

When invited to expand on accommodations denials, many staff and faculty described:

  • Inconsistent access to work-from-home arrangements, including insecure temporary remote work arrangements (e.g., no commitment that a current remote work agreement would continue or actions that undermine current arrangements, such as denying equipment requests)
  • Institutional factors overriding employees’ needs and medical experts’ recommendations (e.g., supervisors’ authority or perceived favourtism, financial limitations, and UM policies)

I have been granted a temporary accommodation situation that is working very well for me and allows me to participate fully in my work [with limited exceptions]. However, the temporary nature of the accommodation is very stressful for me - I feel like I will have to quit when the accommodation ends. I can't imagine going back to working without accommodations now that I understand how much more manageable work can be with them.

What is the impact of being denied accommodations?

  • Negative impacts on personal well-being
  • Having to devote time and energy to additional unpaid labour (e.g., continuing to pursue accommodations following denials and other self-advocacy efforts)
  • Out-of-pocket costs to fund one’s own accommodations

[It feels] invalidating, [they are] concerned more with avoiding precedents [or] hassle than the appropriateness of accommodation or my wellbeing.

Dismantling Ableism Survey (DAS) Keep reading

Download the full Dismantling Ableism Survey report (PDF)