Why Are There so Few Doctorates with Disabilities in Chemistry

Downloaded by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on December 24, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1256.ch018

Chapter 18

Why Are There so Few Doctorates with Disabilities in Chemistry? Thoughts and Reflections Karl S. Booksh* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

According to BLS data, there is a shortage of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent in some U.S. industrial and government sectors. Scientists with disabilities represent an opportunity for talent recruitment in STEM. Unfortunately few people with disabilities have chosen a chemistry research career thus far. In this article, the author reviews the current situation, summarizes the physical and societal barriers, and suggests possible steps that can be done in order to mitigate the problems. Success would be good for the nation and even better for the people and families most directly involved.

Introduction In the early 1990s President George H.W. Bush signed two laws designed to significantly increase the educational opportunities for people with disabilities in the United States. The 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was a substantial amendment of the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). The cornerstone of IDEA is an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) developed for each student through appropriate evaluation, parent and teacher participation, and procedural safeguards. Through his mechanism, IDEA and subsequent amendments seek to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for students with disabilities. IDEA presented a philosophical shift in the education of students with disabilities. Under IDEA with IEPs, schools must address the needs of © 2017 American Chemical Society Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


student learners as individuals with unique needs; EAHCA defined students based on their documented disabilities. While IDEA ensured equal access to quality classroom education, the 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) addressed accessibility of public accommodations and job discrimination on the basis of disability. Under the ADA, and the subsequent 2004 amendment, ‘reasonable’ accommodations must be implemented to enable full and equal enjoyment of publically offered goods, services, and facilities. Thus accommodations such as curb cuts, accessible restrooms, closed captioning, and visual alarms have become ubiquitous. Employers cannot discriminate against ‘qualified’ job applicants on the basis of disability and service animals are permitted in any publically accessible location. Assessing the success of the IDEA and the ADA after a quarter century of enactment presents an initial sense of excitement. Clearly, IDEA and ADA are the global gold standard by which societal inclusion of persons with disabilities (PWD) are judged. Other nations emulate the ADA, but none surpass the US for accommodations or inclusive intent. Having navigated life from a wheelchair both before and after the ADA passage, I can affirm the increased availability of accommodations needed for societal participation. It is rare that I cannot get into a shop, find a restroom at a restaurant, or traverse the streets of my town – all activities I had assumed would be difficult prior to 1991. (I am fortunate to have lived in either suburbia or newer cities in this respect; when travelling I do find dense urban areas and older towns are much less wheelchair accessible.) Similarly, I see the resources brought to bear in the public school system to remove barriers in the classroom, enabling students with physical, sensory, or learning disabilities to fully engage in our educational offerings. These, and other instances too innumerable to list, give me reason for hope and to expect every student with a disability can rise to become their best possible self – that arbitrary societal roadblocks, left in place more out of convenience than intent will be removed such that all people are limited by only their innate ability and drive. However, I look at the data, particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) with dismay. Students with disabilities are a significantly underrepresented group in STEM fields and the disparity between population proportionality and degree attainment increases at all levels in STEM (1). Surveys estimate between 10% and 14% of the non-institutionalized US population between 18 and 45 years of age identifies as having a disability (2). Students with disabilities account for 10% of all STEM undergraduates at trade, 2-year and 4-year institutions (1). The national Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) found only 1.7% of US citizens and permanent residents receiving a STEM doctoral degree in 2009 reported having a disability (1). By way of comparison, African-Americans and Hispanics each earned approximately 5% of STEM doctorates in 2009 while accounting for approximately 12% and 16% of the US population, respectively. But, more troubling is the lack of progress since passage of the IDEA and ADA legislations. Since 1990, there has been a slow and steady increase, slightly greater than 0.15 percentage points per year, in doctoral attainment for African-American and Hispanic students while there has been no statistically significant increase in doctoral attainment for students with disabilities (Figure 1) (3, 4). 196 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 1. The percentage of STEM doctorate degrees earned by students with disabilities (squares) has remained constant since the passage of IDEA and ADA in 1991 (switch to closed figures). Over this time span, there has been a steady increase in doctoral obtainment for African-Americans (diamond) and Hispanics (triangles). Native Americans (circles) have also not realized a yearly improvement.

Why It Is Important That Persons with Disabilities Obtain Advanced STEM Degrees The drive for proportional representation of students with disabilities at every level of academic achievement in STEM is both a civil rights issue and a jobs/economics issue. The ‘natural law’ argument for full inclusion in societal activities and for equal opportunities based on intrinsic abilities is a cornerstone of civil rights discussions for all minority groups. Retaining arbitrary or prejudicial barriers that prevent 1/8th of the US population from realizing their potential is inconsistent with US ethical values. As trenchant as the civil rights case for inclusion might be, data indicates both a need for full inclusion of persons with disabilities in the workforce and a deficiency in persons with disabilities enjoying the full benefits of labor force participation. Future workforce participation will become increasingly dependent on STEM training. The Dept. of Commerce predicted a 17% increase in STEM jobs between 2008 and 2018 with 2/3 requiring a college degree compared to a 9% increase in non-STEM jobs with only 1/3 requiring a college degree (5). STEM unemployment remains lower than the national average. In spite of the need for US workers, the April 2017 labor force participation rate for persons with disabilities 197 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


is only 20.1% with a 10.7% unemployment compared 68.6% and 3.8% for people without disabilities (6). Among the employed there is a 4% salary gap between people with and without disabilities younger than 29 years. This gap increases to 13% in the prime earning period of 40 and 49 years old (1). Employment outcomes for persons with disabilities have not improved since 1990 and between 2008 and 2010, workers with disabilities left the workforce at five times the average rate (7). While groups such as people with disabilities are underemployed, both in general and within STEM fields, the nation continues to import and train workers to meet domestic needs instead of preparing students with disabilities (and other underrepresented groups) to fully participate in the labor force. More than 1/3 of STEM doctorates from US institutions are conferred to non-US citizens. Across all STEM fields nearly 13,000 non-US citizens received US doctorates in 2009 compared to only 1,000 African-American, 1,000 Hispanic, and 400 persons with disabilities who are citizens or permanent residents. Results are similar for STEM undergraduate degree attainment. While most non-US citizens earning advanced degrees return to their native country, many stay in the US for employment. The US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that all job growth from 2000-2014 went to immigrant workers (8). There was a net decrease of 0.15 million working age US natives in the labor force w ile there was a net increase of 5.7 million working age immigrants in the labor force despite working age population increases of 16.8 million and 8.8 million for natives and immigrants during the same period.

Potential Contributing Factors to the Achievement Gap for Persons with Disabilities in STEM There is no single reason that explains the entire achievement gap between persons with and without disabilities. Instead there are multiple contributing factors which ultimately lead to the large disparity in outcomes. The Matthew Effect has long been noted to play a role in determining success in STEM; early successes lead to small rewards which grant greater opportunities enabling acclaim and notoriety (9). The flip-side of the Matthew Effect is the concept of accumulated microagressions – small, often unintended or subconscious, actions that cumulatively serve to widen the achievement gap between classes of individuals. Unintended microagressions have origins in both societal and educational infrastructure. Negative imagery where persons with disabilities are commonly portrayed as either helpless or sinister inhibits self-visualization as a successful scientist, engineer or doctor. In primary school, students fall behind their peers when disabilities are ignored or not diagnosed at an early age; failure to provide needed accommodations suppresses both performance and persistence in education. A vicious cycle is thus formed for persons with disabilities to not attain their educational goals and thus become under-employed or unemployed. Consequently, successful STEM role models who have disabilities are not visible 198 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


to break societal prejudices or to serve as avatars for the next generation of students with disabilities. Although students with disabilities express interest in STEM degrees at the same rate as students without disabilities, retention at all education levels is lower for students with disabilities. The transition from an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in high school to the college model of self-advocacy contributes to performance of students with disabilities falling behind their peers. With IEPs, needed accommodations are predetermined in consultation between the school administration, parents, doctors, and education specialists and provided from a single centralized location. In the primary and secondary educational setting, the student is not an active participant in determining the IEP. In college, the student is expected to assume leadership in anticipating and negotiating needed accommodations for classes and within the community. A centralized disability support services plays a role in institutional ADA compliance, but not in advocating for student needs. Once students fall behind their peers, they are less likely to persist for graduation. Societal schema also plays a large role in judging merit and offering career-making opportunities. Selection bias towards applicants that are most similar to the assessor has been established. Students with disabilities do not follow the academic trajectory common to most faculty at top universities. Students with disabilities are more likely to begin at 2-year institutions and attend undergraduate school part-time than non-disabled colleagues (10). For these and reasons discussed above, graduate students with disabilities are older than graduate students without disabilities (1). Additionally, STEM students without disabilities are 50% more likely to be on research assistant stipends than students with disabilities (1). There are few federal programs that support the advancement of students with disabilities in STEM compared to federal support for other underrepresented groups. According to the 2010 Federal STEM Education Inventory Data Set on broadening participation (Table 1), $380 million was dedicated to programs supporting ‘Institutional Capacity’ or ‘Postsecondary STEM’ for underrepresented minorities (URM) in college while only $20M was dedicated to similar programs for college students with disabilities, a 19:1 ratio (11). These figures do not include Federal STEM education support for programs targeting women. The majority of federal funding targeting students with disabilities goes through the Department of Education and the Department of Labor tracking students with disabilities into low paying service based employment.

Pathways to Proportional Representation An appeal for increased federal funding of programs promoting postsecondary STEM career paths for students with disabilities is natural. There are direct and indirect mechanisms that federal programs encourage the success of underrepresented groups. The steady improvement in doctoral attainment for URM across the last 25 years may well be a direct positive outcome of multiple 199 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


well-funded federal programs. Indirectly, the existence of $380 M in federal programs scattered across every STEM funding agency sends a strong message of our values and priorities. Faculty and academic institutions are served notice that inclusion and advancement of URM is a national priority. Faculty that want to ‘do good’ and become engaged in broadening participation either have the financially supported infrastructure in place at their home or partner institution or see significant opportunities for funding new projects. Conversely, a relatively discouraging message is sent to students with disabilities and potentially allied educators. Federal support holds open the door for URM while directing students with disabilities to the back entrance for service based employment. Simply annually funding $200 M of federal programs targeting students with disabilities in STEM would be unlikely to provide a good return on investment. It is essential to design and fund the proper sustainable programs. How URM groups exhibit decreased performance and persistence do to the stresses of being significantly underrepresented in an environment (so called ‘solo status’ and ‘stereotype threat’). There is also much research on how various underrepresented groups respond differently to interventions. Unfortunately, the academic disability community has been the subject of few studies. The dearth of scientifically reviewed information to guide program development must be rectified. Professional societies can play a substantial role in promoting the recruitment and inclusion of persons with disabilities into high level STEM careers. Most societies do not have an active policy on education and employment of persons with disabilities. Notable exceptions are the AAAS, American Chemical Society, and American Psychological Association. Devoting intellectual and capital resources to professional disability issues serves both students with disabilities and an aging workforce alike. Additionally, the interplay between disability and ethnicity makes it important that professional societies focusing on other underrepresented groups (minority, women, or LBGT for example) address disability issues. While such dual-representation is not well studied from the disability perspective, research on women of color indicate that people with dual representation have negative experiences that are not well addressed from a single perspective. Profound cultural changes will need to occur both in how society views the need for accommodations and how society views the potential to excel for people with disabilities. Clearly a quadriplegic is unlikely to be a field volcanologist or a practicing large animal veterinarian. However, that is not to say that a person with a given disability cannot make significant gains in any given field. Most STEM practitioners rely on technology for their jobs: we cannot see the light from distant stars, manipulate nanoscale objects by hand, nor visualize complex data without a computer. Many of the obstacles that inhibit the inclusion of persons with disabilities are arbitrary and in place for historical reasons. For example, all bachelor chemists must survive a quantitative analysis laboratory filled with bench titrations; however few doctorate chemists ever perform a titration once employed. This example highlights the need for universal design in developing STEM curriculum. Degree pathways can be developing that play to the student’s individual strengths where accommodations are easy, natural, and will translate to future career probabilities. 200 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Table 1. Select Programs from the 2010 Federal STEM Education Inventory Data Set of broadening participation. Target

Program

Agency

FY 2010

URM

Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation. (LSAMP)

NSF

$45 M

URM

Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement. (RISE)

NIH

$24 M

URM

Maximizing Access to Research Careers. Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research. (MARC U-STAR)

NIH

$21 M

Women

Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers. (ADVANCE)

NSF

$21 M

URM

Educational Partnership with Minority Serving Institutions.

NOAA

$14 M

URM

HBCU STEM Research Workforce Development Program.

DOE

$9 M

Disability

Research on Disability Education. (RDE)

NSF

$7 M

In their 2011/2012 report to congress, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) proposed that NSF consider a ‘bold new initiative for broadening participation’ (12). While intentionally short on details, the bold initiative recommends a more holistic approach to broadening participation in STEM, emphasizing institutional transformation and systemic change along the whole K-20+ pipeline. Key in this recommendation is development of clear benchmarks for success, collection of longitudinal data, and analytics for determining best practices. Success of the bold proposal will require a concerted effort across multiple federal agencies, support from professional societies, and buy-in from academia in general.

Conclusions An appeal for increased federal funding of programs promoting both the workforce needs and the needs of persons with disabilities can be addressed by removing physical and societal barriers that impede the full participation of persons with disabilities in STEM careers. While the challenges to realizing proportional representation in STEM for persons with disabilities are numerous, other underrepresented groups have made great strides towards more full participation in STEM in the past decades. Knowledge gained though programs targeting URM and women can be augmented with future research particular to persons with disabilities in STEM to realize positive change in the next few years. The open question is do we have the national desire and will to enable full participation of persons with disabilities in the STEM workforce? Success would 201 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

be good for the nation and even better for the people and families most directly involved.

References


1.

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering; NSF 09-305; 2009. 2. McNeil, J. Current Population Reports. Americans With Disabilities; P70-73; 1997; pp 1−20. 3. Most recent longitudinal data. In 2010 the Survey of Earned doctorates loosened the definition of disability to include self-reported ‘moderate’ levels of impairment. The new explanation reads: ‘Individual doctorate recipients could report more than one functional limitation. Survey asks degree of difficulty—none, slight, moderate, severe, or unable to do—an individual has in seeing (with glasses), hearing (with hearing aid), walking without assistance, lifting 10 pounds, or concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Those respondents who answered “moderate,” “severe,” or “unable to do” for any activity were classified as having a functional limitation.’ In 2013, the Survey of Earned Doctorates again changed how the disability question was asked. Results with the newest revision are not yet published. 4. Data have been assembled from past releases of National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, dating back to 1990. 5. Langdon, D.; McKittrick, G.; Beede, D.; Khan, B.; Doms, M. STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future; Economics and Statistics Administration, US Department of Commerce: 2011. http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stemgood-jobs-now-and-future (accessed May 8, 2017). 6. Department of Labor. http://www.dol.gov/odep/ (accessed May 8, 2017). 7. Committee Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Tom Harkin Chairman. Unfinished Business: Making Employment of People with Disabilities a National Priority; U.S. Senate: 2013. http://www.ct.gov/dds/lib/dds/ community/cms_guidance_around_sheltered_workshops.pdf (accessed May 8, 2017). 8. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data compiled in Table 1 of Camarota, S. A.; Zeigler, K. All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants; Center for Immigration Studies: June 2014. http://cis.org/sites/ cis.org/files/camarota-employment.pdf (accessed May 8, 2017). 9. Merton, R. K. The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 1968, 159, 56–63. 10. US Department of Education, National Center for Special Education Research. The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), NCSER 2011-3005. http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2011_09_02/nlts2_report_2011_09_02_ complete.pdf (accessed May 8, 2017). 202 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


11. 2010 Federal STEM Education Inventory Data Set. https://explore.data.gov/ Education/2010-Federal-STEM-Education-Inventory-Data-Set/fjev-3jgp (accessed May 8, 2017). 12. NSF Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering. 2011-2012 Biennial Report to Congress, Broadening Participation in America’s STEM Workforce, CEOSE 13-01, July 2013. https://www.nsf.gov/ od/iia/activities/ceose/ (accessed May 8, 2017).

203 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Why Are There so Few Doctorates with Disabilities in Chemistry

Recommend Documents