When the Royal Society of Chemistry began to tackle the barriers to disabled entrants to the profession, it threw up as many questions as answers, says Emrys Travis.
In 2020, the Royal Society of Chemistry found that disabled people were underrepresented in our community, and we have since made understanding and tackling the barriers facing disabled people’s full and equal participation in the chemical sciences a top priority.
However, recognising the diverse experiences and needs of disabled chemists, we understand that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. As a first step to collecting and sharing what we’ve learned so far, we launched the Disability in the Chemical Sciences web hub. This initiative combines a multi-source report, graphics, analysis and recommendations, with dedicated pages signposting resources for organisations and individuals. The hub aims to map the landscape of disability in the chemical sciences, delve into the experiences of disabled chemists, and identify barriers that hinder their full participation. Our ultimate goal is to empower the chemistry community to overcome these obstacles and foster environments that are not just inclusive but also accessible.
Members of our community articulated a diverse range of reasons contributing to the under-identification with disability
Self-identification and disability declaration proved a particularly interesting topic. We found that while only 4% of RSC members self-identified as disabled, this more than doubled to 10% when members were asked whether they faced barriers or limitations related to disability or long-term health conditions. Members of our community articulated a diverse range of reasons contributing to the under-identification with disability.
These encompassed societal stigma, the impact of imposter syndrome, concerns related to privacy or data usage, and a pervasive lack of awareness regarding what can ‘count’ as a disability.
From these findings, several practical lessons emerge. Firstly, the phrasing plays a crucial role in accurate representation. Secondly, we must consistently and proactively promote an inclusive definition of disability that encompasses mental health conditions, neurodivergence, chronic illnesses and long-term health conditions, alongside sensory and mobility impairments. No one should be left in doubt that any of these can count. Thirdly, it is imperative we do our part in fostering disability positivity, contribute to the societal journey towards ending the stigma and encourage individuals to connect with supportive communities. Lastly, even with progress in these areas, we must be realistic that case-by-case support for individuals will only ever take us part of the way. Science must adopt an outsidein approach to disability inclusion, focusing on creating welcoming and accessible environments, where the full and equal participation of all is standard practice.
In education or in the workplace, existing systems of disability support often place the burden on the disabled individual to request reasonable adjustments.
In the first place, it is not always clear who is responsible or how to initiate the process. If a place of work or study requires medical evidence for adjustments to be made – a commonly unnecessary bureaucratic barrier – the onus is on the individual to organise and pay for that evidence, potentially even navigating years-long healthcare waiting lists. Lack of training for managers, a change in manager or a lessthan- perfect managerial relationship can impede the process further, as can a lack of organisational knowledge as to what adjustments can be requested. This is particularly important for lab-based work, where hardware and processes have specifications that may not be anticipated by centralised disability assessors. These barriers, in addition to the bureaucracy and delays involved in obtaining financial support through Access to Work or Disabled Students’ Allowance, add up to a punishing burden of self-advocacy universally recognised by our disabled chemistry community throughout their careers.
It’s clear why this self-advocacy, on top of managing work or study while disabled as well as other intersecting factors, can be problematic. Administrative tasks are often inaccessible or disproportionately taxing for many disabled people, adding further to the burden.
Even those who do manage to successfully navigate these challenges are often left with the impression that they as disabled people are expected to exert more effort to be included than non-disabled people, impacting negatively on their sense of belonging. Some types of adjustments – for example, receiving written summaries of verbally agreed tasks after a meeting – may need to be asked for repeatedly and from various different people. When the onus is on the disabled individual to do so, imposter syndrome can be a powerful barrier, with many of our community reporting that they had suffered through without adjustments for fear of being seen as making a fuss.
Introducing the principle of disability inclusion adjustments into standard practice, however, can remove ‘activation barriers’ for disabled people, while also benefiting the whole community. One simple illustrative example recommended by disability inclusion experts is the practice of sending out interview questions in advance, giving applicants time to prepare. This adjustment is necessary for some, such as interviewees with impaired memory and recall, anxiety, speech differences, or who use a screen reader. But many other people, regardless of disability, find that some preparation time enables them to most effectively communicate their relevant capabilities, which best equips interviewers to determine the right person for the role. Turning an adjustment into standard practice not only removes the burden of self-advocacy from disabled people, but benefits everyone else as well.
Emrys Travis is disability and accessibility specialist at the Royal Society of Chemistry
